From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: Re : [PATCH nft 1/7] Interpret OP_NEQ against a set as OP_LOOKUP Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:40:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20161129214030.GA8286@salvia> References: <20161128113905.GC1691@salvia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Anatole Denis Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:43394 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754385AbcK2Vkj (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:40:39 -0500 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8180174D1E for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:40:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82CBA7E23 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:40:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7FB9A7E1E for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:40:35 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 05:49:58PM +0100, Anatole Denis wrote: > Le 28/11/2016 12:39:05, Pablo Neira Ayuso a écrit : [...] > I believe this error is not the best way to handle this issue. I > sent a patch to the list with a proposed change to catch it earlier, > removing the need to check for it here. In case that other patch is > refused, I will send v2 with this check added. I see, you're refering to the patchset you sent later on. [...] > The case for a lookup/inverse lookup into a nonexistent set is > tested in ip/sets.t and ip6/sets. (somewhere in patches 3 and 4). > I'll send a v2 of these tests with a test for datatype mismatch > added. Send me a follow up patch for this if you think this can help us increase test coverage, that will be appreciated. > Considering the previous remarks (and the other patches), do > you think I still should change the error handling code ? I think this is fine so I applied your patchses. The check for datatype == NULL was not going to the core of the problem indeed. Thanks.