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 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00F48CA0EE4 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 15:46:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uol0b-00077X-VE; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 11:45:54 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uol0Z-00075G-Rw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 11:45:51 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uol0Y-0001tG-9D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 11:45:51 -0400 Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF30F1FDCF; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 15:45:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1755704748; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JDvO1I8+KENJf3KaGfZMfZX5hxRg9EMZsxXLfFjKbuQ=; b=zv/Ijv3TD3PkO5SjKxBetB0K1yK81jsCvuB1o7W5QgRHBkZYgTganIav3Xz6UDij63vMbq CAQftcdm/afGsd5BrGFs1S8fuOafKCzJdnG2Z6i9wFun1WXp0pwBO412FhTLs1Zkz8wNUK Nl8Y38b5XgGW8oVjcMxMfIUo7y69F68= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1755704748; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JDvO1I8+KENJf3KaGfZMfZX5hxRg9EMZsxXLfFjKbuQ=; b=Icj16JDc/6DgZ5TDFf7yq2hLDI3E86hiZRATqdPfB9Aemvr2KPlC7WhzfI03W5QE1HwFMf eEYGrHemkLFiU8Bw== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1755704748; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JDvO1I8+KENJf3KaGfZMfZX5hxRg9EMZsxXLfFjKbuQ=; b=zv/Ijv3TD3PkO5SjKxBetB0K1yK81jsCvuB1o7W5QgRHBkZYgTganIav3Xz6UDij63vMbq CAQftcdm/afGsd5BrGFs1S8fuOafKCzJdnG2Z6i9wFun1WXp0pwBO412FhTLs1Zkz8wNUK Nl8Y38b5XgGW8oVjcMxMfIUo7y69F68= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1755704748; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JDvO1I8+KENJf3KaGfZMfZX5hxRg9EMZsxXLfFjKbuQ=; b=Icj16JDc/6DgZ5TDFf7yq2hLDI3E86hiZRATqdPfB9Aemvr2KPlC7WhzfI03W5QE1HwFMf eEYGrHemkLFiU8Bw== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54BF91368B; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 15:45:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id BKvaBKztpWjjcwAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 20 Aug 2025 15:45:48 +0000 From: Fabiano Rosas To: Peter Xu Cc: Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, berrange@redhat.com, Eric Blake Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/24] migration: Normalize tls arguments In-Reply-To: References: <20250630195913.28033-1-farosas@suse.de> <20250630195913.28033-4-farosas@suse.de> <87y0t81hg1.fsf@pond.sub.org> <87o6u456xn.fsf@suse.de> <87jz4o3xry.fsf@suse.de> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 12:45:45 -0300 Message-ID: <87ikiivvx2.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.30 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-0.999]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; FUZZY_RATELIMITED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.de:mid,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo] Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:2; envelope-from=farosas@suse.de; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Peter Xu writes: > On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 10:12:33AM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: > > [...] > >> >>> +static void tls_opt_to_str(StrOrNull **tls_opt) >> >>> +{ >> >>> + StrOrNull *opt = *tls_opt; >> >>> + >> >>> + if (!opt) { >> >>> + return; >> >> >> >> ... it can also be null. >> >> >> > >> > Hmm, I'll have to double check, but with the StrOrNull property being >> > initialized, NULL should not be possible. This looks like a mistake. >> > >> >> The code is correct, this is coming from the QAPI, so it could be NULL >> in case the user hasn't provided the option. I'll use your suggested >> wording and the code suggestion as well. > > One more trivial question: > >> >> >> Maybe >> >> >> >> /* Normalize QTYPE_QNULL to QTYPE_QSTRING "" */ >> >> >> >>> + } >> >>> + >> >>> + switch (opt->type) { >> >>> + case QTYPE_QSTRING: >> >>> + return; >> >>> + case QTYPE_QNULL: >> >>> + qobject_unref(opt->u.n); >> >>> + break; >> >>> + default: >> >>> + g_assert_not_reached(); >> >>> + } >> >>> + >> >>> + opt->type = QTYPE_QSTRING; >> >>> + opt->u.s = g_strdup(""); >> >>> + *tls_opt = opt; > > Does tls_opt ever change? I wonder if this line is not needed, instead > tls_opt_to_str() can take an "StrOrNull *opt" directly. > Well spotted! >> >>> +} >> >> >> >> I'd prefer something like >> >> >> >> if (!opt || opt->type == QTYPE_QSTRING) { >> >> return; >> >> } >> >> qobject_unref(opt->u.n); >> >> opt->type = QTYPE_QSTRING; >> >> opt->u.s = g_strdup(""); >> >> *tls_opt = opt; >> >> >> >> But this is clearly a matter of taste. >> >> This is better indeed. I was moving back-and-forth between >> implementations and the code ended up a bit weird. Thanks! >>