Fix inequality port lookups #834
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
lava
approved these changes
Apr 22, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ideally we should also add a unit (integration?) test that actually tests the situation described in the changelog, i.e. a database containing two entries "80/udp" and "8080/tcp" and a check that vast count "port != 80/tcp" == 2, the one you added could silently decay when an index other than port_index is used in the future.
|
I've added to more integration tests. The testing you are describing is actually already covered by the unit tests, I think. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes a bug when performing queries of the form
x != 80/tcp. The query was falsely evaluated asx != 80/? && x != ?/tcp. (The syntax in the second predicate does not yet exist.) The correct evaluation should bex != 80/? || x != ?/tcp, i.e., we want to include80/udpand80/?in the result as well, which requires performing a disjunction of the port type.