On 2022-01-15, at 18:09:01 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Jeremy Sowden <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2022-01-15, at 16:57:07 +0000, Jeremy Sowden wrote:
> > > On 2022-01-15, at 17:48:24 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > > > Jeremy Sowden <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > Currently, with only one base and dependency stored this is
> > > > > superfluous, but it will become more useful when the next
> > > > > commit adds support for storing a payload for every base.
> > > >
> > > > > + dep = payload_dependency_get(ctx, PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR)->expr;
> > > >
> > > > This new helper can return NULL, would you mind reworking this
> > > > to add error checks here?
> > >
> > > Yup.
> >
> > Actually, let me provide a bit more context:
> >
> > @@ -2060,11 +2060,13 @@ static bool meta_may_dependency_kill(struct payload_dep_ctx *ctx,
> > const struct expr *expr)
> > {
> > uint8_t l4proto, nfproto = NFPROTO_UNSPEC;
> > - struct expr *dep = ctx->pdep->expr;
> > + struct expr *dep;
> >
> > if (ctx->pbase != PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR)
> > return true;
> >
> > + dep = payload_dependency_get(ctx, PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR)->expr;
> > +
> >
> > We check that there is a PROTO_BASE_NETWORK_HDR dependency
> > immediately before calling the helper.
>
> Perhaps remove the check?
>
> bla()->foo looks weird, esp. given bla() last line is "return NULL".
Righto.
J.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
