From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 819B2C4724C for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591CC2076D for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726922AbgD3PwW (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:52:22 -0400 Received: from correo.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:42196 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726889AbgD3PwW (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:52:22 -0400 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4FAF2580 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:52:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2DB6DA736 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:52:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix, from userid 99) id E8473BAAB8; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:52:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6EEBAAB1; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:52:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 192.168.1.97 (192.168.1.97) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int); Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:52:18 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int) Received: from us.es (unknown [90.77.255.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: 1984lsi) by entrada.int (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDAE342EFB8D; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:52:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:52:18 +0200 X-SMTPAUTHUS: auth mail.us.es From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Phil Sutter , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [nft PATCH 3/4] segtree: Merge get_set_interval_find() and get_set_interval_end() Message-ID: <20200430155218.GA4214@salvia> References: <20200430151408.32283-1-phil@nwl.cc> <20200430151408.32283-4-phil@nwl.cc> <20200430153729.GA3602@salvia> <20200430154841.GP15009@orbyte.nwl.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200430154841.GP15009@orbyte.nwl.cc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 05:48:42PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 05:37:29PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 05:14:07PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > Both functions were very similar already. Under the assumption that they > > > will always either see a range (or start of) that matches exactly or not > > > at all, reduce complexity and make get_set_interval_find() accept NULL > > > (left or) right values. This way it becomes a full replacement for > > > get_set_interval_end(). > > > > I have to go back to the commit log of this patch, IIRC my intention > > here was to allow users to ask for a single element, then return the > > range that contains it. > > That was my suspicion as well, but while testing I found out that no > matter what I passed to 'get element', I couldn't provoke a situation in > which get_set_interval_find() would have left and right elements which > didn't match exactly (or not at all). > > There must be some preparation happening before the call to > get_set_decompose() which normalizes things. And still, If I disable the > call to get_set_decompose() entirely, tests start failing. Hm, so the approximate or exact matching is broken? Or you mean they fail because you didn't expect the approximate matching?