nanocoap/sock: fix state handling for mismatching message ID in nanocoap_sock_request_cb()
#20725
Conversation
This file contains 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
github-actions
bot
added
Area: network
fabian18
added
the
Type: bug
mguetschow
reviewed
Jun 5, 2024
mguetschow
reviewed
Jun 5, 2024
benpicco
reviewed
Jun 5, 2024
fabian18
force-pushed
the
pr/nanocoap_sock_fix_ctx_release
branch
from
710de1c to
5145b29
Compare
fabian18
added
the
CI: ready for build
benpicco
approved these changes
Jun 7, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Contribution description
I encountered a situation in
nanocoap_sock_request_cb()where the message ID did not match and anassert(ctx == NULL)fired.This introduces the state
STATE_WAIT_RESPONSEafter every (re)transmission.The function is still hard to read. I added a label at the end to make sure the context is deleted in all cases.
Testing procedure
Issues/PRs references
I must have introduced this with #20697