Bastian Schmidt: > Shall I remove the check again? After all, it's just a simple if and > won't hurt. In case later someone makes initialization conditional it > would prevent the segfault.
Removing this initialization would be a bad idea. The way the code works is that all table variables are initialized, so that the consumers of those tables do not have to worry about it. Wietse > > On 17.01.19 20:46, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Bastian Schmidt: > >> No, it would not segfault (permit_tls_clientcerts does not do any check > >> as well.). > > I see, because the relay_ccerts initialization is unconditional: > > > > relay_ccerts = maps_create(VAR_RELAY_CCERTS, var_smtpd_relay_ccerts, > > DICT_FLAG_LOCK | DICT_FLAG_FOLD_FIX); > > > > Therefore it is safe to acces the information. > > > >> However, I like the idea and added some checks to improve the patch. > > In this specific case there is no need to validate relay_ccerts. > > > > Wietse > > > >> Also, I was finally able to get dovecot installed for testing and have > >> fixed some issues for dovecot-sasl. > >> > >> Bastian > >> > >> > >> On 16.01.19 01:08, Wietse Venema wrote: > >>> Will this code segfault if relay_clientcerts is not specified? You > >>> may want to add some checks that information exists before using it. > >>> > >>> Wietse > >> > > [ Attachment, skipping... ] > > >