Fernando Fernandez Mancera <ffmanc...@riseup.net> wrote:
> El 16 de julio de 2019 18:47:11 CEST, Phil Sutter <p...@nwl.cc> escribió:
> >Hi Pablo,
> >
> >On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 01:51:20PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> >[...]
> >> diff --git a/src/evaluate.c b/src/evaluate.c
> >> index f95f42e1067a..cd566e856a11 100644
> >> --- a/src/evaluate.c
> >> +++ b/src/evaluate.c
> >> @@ -1984,17 +1984,9 @@ static int stmt_evaluate_verdict(struct
> >eval_ctx *ctx, struct stmt *stmt)
> >> case EXPR_VERDICT:
> >> if (stmt->expr->verdict != NFT_CONTINUE)
> >> stmt->flags |= STMT_F_TERMINAL;
> >> - if (stmt->expr->chain != NULL) {
> >> - if (expr_evaluate(ctx, &stmt->expr->chain) < 0)
> >> - return -1;
> >> - if ((stmt->expr->chain->etype != EXPR_SYMBOL &&
> >> - stmt->expr->chain->etype != EXPR_VALUE) ||
> >> - stmt->expr->chain->symtype != SYMBOL_VALUE) {
> >> - return stmt_error(ctx, stmt,
> >> - "invalid verdict chain
> >> expression %s\n",
> >> - expr_name(stmt->expr->chain));
> >> - }
> >> - }
> >
> >According to my logs, this bit was added by Fernando to cover for
> >invalid variable values[1]. So I fear we can't just drop this check.
> >
> >Cheers, Phil
> >
> >[1] I didn't check with current sources, but back then the following
> > variable contents were problematic:
> >
> > * define foo = @set1 (a set named 'set1' must exist)
> > * define foo = { 1024 }
> > * define foo = *
>
> Yes I am looking to the report and why current version fails when the jump is
> to a non-base chain because I tested that some months ago.
>
> I will catch up with more details in a few hours. Sorry for the
> inconveniences.
Fernando, in case Pablos patch v2 fixes the reported bug, could you
followup with a test case? It would help when someone tries to remove
"unneeded code" in the future ;-)
Thanks,
Florian
