We rearrange rather than just replacing the subtraction, because that
would call ntohl() more than necessary, and I think the flow is a bit
clearer this way.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15625
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
if (((struct sockaddr *)&i1->ip)->sa_family == AF_INET) {
struct sockaddr_in *s1 = (struct sockaddr_in *)&i1->ip;
struct sockaddr_in *s2 = (struct sockaddr_in *)&i2->ip;
if (((struct sockaddr *)&i1->ip)->sa_family == AF_INET) {
struct sockaddr_in *s1 = (struct sockaddr_in *)&i1->ip;
struct sockaddr_in *s2 = (struct sockaddr_in *)&i2->ip;
-
- r = ntohl(s1->sin_addr.s_addr) -
- ntohl(s2->sin_addr.s_addr);
- if (r) {
- return r;
+ uint32_t a1 = ntohl(s1->sin_addr.s_addr);
+ uint32_t a2 = ntohl(s2->sin_addr.s_addr);
+ r = NUMERIC_CMP(a1, a2);
+ if (r == 0) {
+ /* compare netmasks as a tiebreaker */
+ s1 = (struct sockaddr_in *)&i1->netmask;
+ s2 = (struct sockaddr_in *)&i2->netmask;
+ a1 = ntohl(s1->sin_addr.s_addr);
+ a2 = ntohl(s2->sin_addr.s_addr);
+ r = NUMERIC_CMP(a1, a2);
-
- s1 = (struct sockaddr_in *)&i1->netmask;
- s2 = (struct sockaddr_in *)&i2->netmask;
-
- return ntohl(s1->sin_addr.s_addr) -
- ntohl(s2->sin_addr.s_addr);