On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:04:06PM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> On 8/26/19 11:42 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 07:01:01AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> >> Right now all we get is "Misbehaving filter", which doesn't tell the
> >> developer a lot.
> >>
> >> Diff
On 8/26/19 11:42 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 07:01:01AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
>> Right now all we get is "Misbehaving filter", which doesn't tell the
>> developer a lot.
>>
>> Diff below does the following:
>> - Make the register_hooks actually fail on
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 07:01:01AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> Right now all we get is "Misbehaving filter", which doesn't tell the
> developer a lot.
>
> Diff below does the following:
> - Make the register_hooks actually fail on misbehaviour.
> - Change some *ep = 0 to a more semantically
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019, at 00:30, gil...@poolp.org wrote:
> 25 août 2019 07:01 "Martijn van Duren" a
> écrit:
> > Right now all we get is "Misbehaving filter", which doesn't tell the
> > developer a lot.
> >
>
> Indeed
>
>
> > Diff below does the following:
> > - Make the register_hooks
25 août 2019 07:01 "Martijn van Duren" a
écrit:
> Right now all we get is "Misbehaving filter", which doesn't tell the
> developer a lot.
>
Indeed
> Diff below does the following:
> - Make the register_hooks actually fail on misbehaviour.
> - Change some *ep = 0 to a more semantically
Right now all we get is "Misbehaving filter", which doesn't tell the
developer a lot.
Diff below does the following:
- Make the register_hooks actually fail on misbehaviour.
- Change some *ep = 0 to a more semantically correct ep[0] = '\0'
- Hoist some checks from lka_filter_process_response to
