On 21/08/2018 17:21, Denis Ovsienko wrote:
> (moving this to tcpdump-workers)
>
> ---- On Tue, 08 May 2018 14:41:13 +0100 Francois-Xavier Le Bail
> <devel.fx.leb...@orange.fr> wrote ----
> > e.g.:
> > proto1_print(...)
> > {
> > ndo->ndo_protocol = "proto1";
> > ...
> > proto2_print(...);
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > proto2_print(...)
> > {
> > ndo->ndo_protocol = "proto2";
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > If proto2_print, a "final protocol" (don't call another function with
> ndo_protocol assignment), need
> > to print truncated string with/without longjmp process: no problem.
> >
> > If no truncated case occurs in proto2_print, after return, the
> proto1_print function take the
> > control and if truncated case occurs in proto1_print it will print
> "[|proto2]".
> >
> > Thus after all calls of function with ndo_protocol assignment, we will
> need a ndo_protocol re-assign
> > like:
> >
> > proto1_print(...)
> > {
> > ndo->ndo_protocol = "proto1";
> > ...
> > proto2_print(...);
> > ndo->ndo_protocol = "proto1";
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > It can bring errors (forgetting...).
> >
> > Could we do things differently ?
>
> With things done this way it looks like this issue could happen, although it
> would result in incorrect labeling, not incorrect behaviour.
>
> A possible solution could be some stack structure and a macro to call the
> next function, which macro would take care to update the stack before and
> after the function call. But to me such a solution looks more complicated
> than the problem, I would rather proof-read the source code once and leave it
> to work.
Agreed. Some ndo_protocol reassignment already done in 6daf3a54 and d8802934.
Perhaps more to do. I will have a look.
_______________________________________________
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
