On Thu, 2023-11-02 at 12:27 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 12:20:29PM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > > By now, all "struct expr_ops" have a json() hook set. Thus, drop > > handling the possibility that they might not. From now on, it's a > > bug > > to create a ops without the hook. > > > > It's not clear what the code tried to do. It bothered to implement > > a > > fallback via fmemopen(), but apparently that fallback is no > > considered a > > good solution as it also printed a "warning". Either the fallback > > is > > good and does not warrant a warning. Or the condition is to be > > avoided > > to begin with, which we should do by testing the expr_ops > > structures. > > > > As the fallback path has an overhead to create the memory stream, > > the > > fallback path is indeed not great. That is the reason to outlaw a > > missing json() hook, to require that all hooks are present, and to > > drop > > the fallback path. > > > > A missing hook is very easy to cover with unit tests. Such a test > > shall > > be added soon. > > That's fine to simplify code. > > But then, in 1/2 you better set some STUB that hits BUG() because we > should not ever see variable and symbol expression from json listing > path ever. > I think BUG() would not work. This does happen, as the tests in patches Subject: [PATCH nft 0/7] add and check dump files for JSON in tests/shell Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 19:53:26 +0100 expose. When you apply the patchset (without patch 2/7) you can get those failures easily. Thomas
