On 08/08/2016 01:32 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 01:17:56PM +0200, Carlos Falgueras García wrote:
diff --git a/src/expr/dynset.c b/src/expr/dynset.c
index 0eaa409..fa8b8d5 100644
--- a/src/expr/dynset.c
+++ b/src/expr/dynset.c
@@ -370,6 +370,23 @@ static void nftnl_expr_dynset_free(const struct nftnl_expr
*e)
xfree(dynset->set_name);
}
+static bool nftnl_expr_dynset_cmp(const struct nftnl_expr *e1,
+ const struct nftnl_expr *e2)
+{
+ struct nftnl_expr_dynset *d1, *d2;
+
+ d1 = nftnl_expr_data(e1);
+ d2 = nftnl_expr_data(e2);
Probably this?
struct nftnl_expr_dynset *d1 = nftnl_expr_data(e1);
struct nftnl_expr_dynset *d2 = nftnl_expr_data(e2);
Ok.
struct expr_ops expr_ops_immediate = {
.name = "immediate",
.alloc_len = sizeof(struct nftnl_expr_immediate),
@@ -332,4 +350,5 @@ struct expr_ops expr_ops_immediate = {
.snprintf = nftnl_expr_immediate_snprintf,
.xml_parse = nftnl_expr_immediate_xml_parse,
.json_parse = nftnl_expr_immediate_json_parse,
+ .cmp = nftnl_expr_immediate_cmp,
Please, place this after free() as in the structure definition for
consistency.
Ok.
diff --git a/src/libnftnl.map b/src/libnftnl.map
index c38e081..748a2c6 100644
--- a/src/libnftnl.map
+++ b/src/libnftnl.map
@@ -528,3 +528,8 @@ LIBNFTNL_4.1 {
nftnl_udata_next;
nftnl_udata_parse;
} LIBNFTNL_4;
+
+LIBNFTNL_4.2 {
+ nftnl_rule_cmp;
+ nftnl_expr_cmp;
+} LIBNFTNL_4;
This should be LIBNFTNL_4.1 instead.
Ok.
diff --git a/src/rule.c b/src/rule.c
index 0cfddf2..27e753b 100644
--- a/src/rule.c
+++ b/src/rule.c
@@ -331,6 +331,36 @@ void nftnl_rule_add_expr(struct nftnl_rule *r, struct
nftnl_expr *expr)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_ALIAS(nftnl_rule_add_expr, nft_rule_add_expr);
+bool nftnl_rule_cmp(const struct nftnl_rule *r1, const struct nftnl_rule *r2)
+{
+ unsigned int eq = 1;
+ struct nftnl_expr *e1, *e2;
+ struct nftnl_expr_iter it1, it2;
Just a comestic comment, we usually prefer this:
struct nftnl_expr_iter it1, it2;
struct nftnl_expr *e1, *e2;
unsigned int eq = 1;
So larger lines in variable declarations go first, if there are no
dependencies of course.
I'll check all of them.
+ if (r1->flags & r1->flags & (1 << NFTNL_RULE_TABLE))
+ eq &= !strcmp(r1->table, r2->table);
+ if (r1->flags & r1->flags & (1 << NFTNL_RULE_CHAIN))
+ eq &= !strcmp(r1->chain, r2->chain);
+ if (r1->flags & r1->flags & (1 << NFTNL_RULE_COMPAT_FLAGS))
+ eq &= r1->compat.flags == r2->compat.flags;
+ if (r1->flags & r1->flags & (1 << NFTNL_RULE_COMPAT_PROTO))
+ eq &= r1->compat.proto == r2->compat.proto;
+
+ nftnl_expr_iter_init(r1, &it1);
+ nftnl_expr_iter_init(r2, &it2);
+ e1 = nftnl_expr_iter_next(&it1);
+ e2 = nftnl_expr_iter_next(&it2);
+ while (eq && e1 && e2) {
+ eq = nftnl_expr_cmp(e1, e2);
+
+ e1 = nftnl_expr_iter_next(&it1);
+ e2 = nftnl_expr_iter_next(&it2);
+ }
Probably you can use:
do {
...
while (...);
to simplify this?
I think it is not possible, 'nftnl_expr_iter_next' can return NULL at
first if there is no expressions, so this structure could call
'nftnl_expr_cmp' with NULL pointers:
do {
e1 = nftnl_expr_iter_next(&it1);
e2 = nftnl_expr_iter_next(&it2);
eq = nftnl_expr_cmp(e1, e2);
} while (eq && e1 && e2);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
