Problem: unreachable code in zap_client_t

Solution: replaced unreachable code by assertions and adapted uses
This commit is contained in:
sigiesec
2017-08-17 12:54:05 +02:00
parent 7f15e6c868
commit f9985708b7
10 changed files with 45 additions and 74 deletions

View File

@@ -45,25 +45,23 @@ zap_client_t::zap_client_t (session_base_t *const session_,
{
}
int zap_client_t::send_zap_request (const char *mechanism,
void zap_client_t::send_zap_request (const char *mechanism,
size_t mechanism_length,
const uint8_t *credentials,
size_t credentials_size)
{
return send_zap_request (mechanism, mechanism_length, &credentials,
&credentials_size, 1);
send_zap_request (mechanism, mechanism_length, &credentials,
&credentials_size, 1);
}
int zap_client_t::send_zap_request (const char *mechanism,
void zap_client_t::send_zap_request (const char *mechanism,
size_t mechanism_length,
const uint8_t **credentials,
size_t *credentials_sizes,
size_t credentials_count)
{
// TODO I don't think the rc can be -1 anywhere below.
// It might only be -1 if the HWM was exceeded, but on the ZAP socket,
// the HWM is disabled. They should be changed to zmq_assert (rc == 0);
// The method's return type can be changed to void then.
// write_zap_msg cannot fail. It could only fail if the HWM was exceeded,
// but on the ZAP socket, the HWM is disabled.
int rc;
msg_t msg;
@@ -73,8 +71,7 @@ int zap_client_t::send_zap_request (const char *mechanism,
errno_assert (rc == 0);
msg.set_flags (msg_t::more);
rc = session->write_zap_msg (&msg);
if (rc != 0)
return close_and_return (&msg, -1);
errno_assert (rc == 0);
// Version frame
rc = msg.init_size (3);
@@ -82,8 +79,7 @@ int zap_client_t::send_zap_request (const char *mechanism,
memcpy (msg.data (), "1.0", 3);
msg.set_flags (msg_t::more);
rc = session->write_zap_msg (&msg);
if (rc != 0)
return close_and_return (&msg, -1);
errno_assert (rc == 0);
// Request ID frame
rc = msg.init_size (1);
@@ -91,8 +87,7 @@ int zap_client_t::send_zap_request (const char *mechanism,
memcpy (msg.data (), "1", 1);
msg.set_flags (msg_t::more);
rc = session->write_zap_msg (&msg);
if (rc != 0)
return close_and_return (&msg, -1);
errno_assert (rc == 0);
// Domain frame
rc = msg.init_size (options.zap_domain.length ());
@@ -101,8 +96,7 @@ int zap_client_t::send_zap_request (const char *mechanism,
options.zap_domain.length ());
msg.set_flags (msg_t::more);
rc = session->write_zap_msg (&msg);
if (rc != 0)
return close_and_return (&msg, -1);
errno_assert (rc == 0);
// Address frame
rc = msg.init_size (peer_address.length ());
@@ -110,8 +104,7 @@ int zap_client_t::send_zap_request (const char *mechanism,
memcpy (msg.data (), peer_address.c_str (), peer_address.length ());
msg.set_flags (msg_t::more);
rc = session->write_zap_msg (&msg);
if (rc != 0)
return close_and_return (&msg, -1);
errno_assert (rc == 0);
// Identity frame
rc = msg.init_size (options.identity_size);
@@ -119,8 +112,7 @@ int zap_client_t::send_zap_request (const char *mechanism,
memcpy (msg.data (), options.identity, options.identity_size);
msg.set_flags (msg_t::more);
rc = session->write_zap_msg (&msg);
if (rc != 0)
return close_and_return (&msg, -1);
errno_assert (rc == 0);
// Mechanism frame
rc = msg.init_size (mechanism_length);
@@ -129,8 +121,7 @@ int zap_client_t::send_zap_request (const char *mechanism,
if (credentials_count)
msg.set_flags (msg_t::more);
rc = session->write_zap_msg (&msg);
if (rc != 0)
return close_and_return (&msg, -1);
errno_assert (rc == 0);
// Credentials frames
for (size_t i = 0; i < credentials_count; ++i) {
@@ -140,11 +131,8 @@ int zap_client_t::send_zap_request (const char *mechanism,
msg.set_flags (msg_t::more);
memcpy (msg.data (), credentials[i], credentials_sizes[i]);
rc = session->write_zap_msg (&msg);
if (rc != 0)
return close_and_return (&msg, -1);
errno_assert (rc == 0);
}
return 0;
}
int zap_client_t::receive_and_process_zap_reply ()
@@ -288,13 +276,7 @@ zmq::mechanism_t::status_t zap_client_common_handshake_t::status () const
int zap_client_common_handshake_t::zap_msg_available ()
{
// TODO I don't think that it is possible that this is called in any
// state other than expect_zap_reply. It should be changed to
// zmq_assert (state == expect_zap_reply);
if (state != waiting_for_zap_reply) {
errno = EFSM;
return -1;
}
zmq_assert (state == waiting_for_zap_reply);
return receive_and_process_zap_reply () == -1 ? -1 : 0;
}