[PATCH] adding custom options in radv protocol, strict ipv6 regex

[Alexander Zubkov]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 5:43 PM Ondrej Zajicek <santiago at crfreenet.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 03:24:47AM +0200, Alexander Zubkov wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 3:16 PM Ondrej Zajicek <santiago at crfreenet.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 02:20:03AM +0200, Alexander Zubkov wrote:
> > > > > Yes, the original idea there was to add bytestring as a data type, make
> > > > > hex() a regular (filter) function instead of special function-like
> > > > > syntax, and add equivalent of 'expr' grammar term for other data types.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I see. I think I can look into preparing a patch for that too.
> > > > But for such variant I would suggest using function names like
> > > > "from_hex/base64" instead of "hex/base64", or something including
> > > > bytestring reference: "bs_hex". Because the simple variants could be
> > > > misleading when used not only in the limited set of scopes.
> > > > they can be thought of converting to hex/base64 representation too. Or they
> > > > could collide with "hex" function to convert from string to int, which
> > > > someone would need to implement in the future.
> > >
> > > Yes, that is true.
> > >
> > > You can try it if you are brave enough to add new f_val type.
> >
> > Take a look at the patch, please. Waiting for the critics and
> > improvement suggestions.
>
> Hi
>
> It looks pretty good. First, could you split it to at least four patches?

Sure. I'll provide split patches later.

>
> 1) unrelated changes, like the newline-in-string-constant
> 2) preparatory changes (functions in lib/bytestring.c, change to BYTESTRING lexer)
> 3) adding bytestring type to filter code (including FI_FROM_HEX inst)
> 4) change to parser related to f_eval_val(), bytestring nonterminal and so on.
>
> Some more comments:
>
> > It was needed to add another function like f_eval_int(), so I decided
> > to do some more generic approach and replaced all occurences of
> > f_eval_int() with it.
>
> That is good approach, although it would be probably better to call this
> function like cf_eval(), associated macro as cf_eval_val, and keep some
> inline functions like cf_eval_int(), cf_eval_bs() and so on.
>
> Or perhaps cf_eval() could return f_val as return value, and have
> shorthand functions like:
>
> static inline cf_eval_int(..) { return cf_eval(.., T_INT).i; }
>
> I will give more comments later.
>
> --
> Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo
>
> Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago at crfreenet.org)
> OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net)
> "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."