[tor-commits] [obfsproxy/master] I decided against the stupid return game in socks{4, 5}_send_reply(). It had no use.

[nickm at torproject.org]

commit 0e37d9f8dabb35fff81ccb08466a2fb6f7e6588e
Author: George Kadianakis <desnacked at gmail.com>
Date:   Tue May 24 01:21:33 2011 +0200

    I decided against the stupid return game in socks{4,5}_send_reply(). It had no use.
---
 src/socks.c               |   12 ++----------
 src/test/unittest_socks.c |    4 ++--
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/socks.c b/src/socks.c
index 5a97b83..6144e26 100644
--- a/src/socks.c
+++ b/src/socks.c
@@ -214,11 +214,7 @@ socks5_send_reply(struct evbuffer *reply_dest, socks_state_t *state,
 
   state->state = ST_SENT_REPLY; /* SOCKS phase is now done. */
 
-  if (status == SOCKS5_REP_SUCCESS) {
-    return 1;
-  } else {
-    return -1;
-  }
+  return 1;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -386,11 +382,7 @@ socks4_send_reply(struct evbuffer *dest, socks_state_t *state, int status)
   memcpy(msg+4, &in.s_addr, 4);
   evbuffer_add(dest, msg, 8);
 
-  /* ASN: Do we actually like this return tactic? Check out why I do it. */
-  if (status == SOCKS5_REP_SUCCESS)
-    return 1;
-  else
-    return -1;
+  return 1;
 }
 
 /**
diff --git a/src/test/unittest_socks.c b/src/test/unittest_socks.c
index 510ede5..cc68528 100644
--- a/src/test/unittest_socks.c
+++ b/src/test/unittest_socks.c
@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ test_socks_socks5_request_reply(void *data)
   state->parsereq.af = AF_UNSPEC;
   strcpy(state->parsereq.addr, fqdn);
 
-  tt_int_op(-1, ==, socks5_send_reply(reply_dest,
+  tt_int_op(1, ==, socks5_send_reply(reply_dest,
                                      state, SOCKS5_REP_FAIL));
 
   uchar rep3[255];
@@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ test_socks_socks4_request_reply(void *data)
   state->parsereq.af = AF_UNSPEC;
   strcpy(state->parsereq.addr, fqdn);
 
-  tt_int_op(-1, ==, socks4_send_reply(reply_dest,
+  tt_int_op(1, ==, socks4_send_reply(reply_dest,
                                       state, SOCKS5_REP_FAIL));
 
   uchar rep2[255];