src: nest postfix decrement counters inside loops

[Rx1513]

Previous PR: #14779

Contribution style:

• I have read the contributing guide lines at
  https://docs.suricata.io/en/latest/devguide/contributing/contribution-process.html

Our Contribution agreements:

• I have signed the Open Information Security Foundation contribution agreement at
  https://suricata.io/about/contribution-agreement/ (note: this is only required once)

Changes:

• I have created a ticket at
  https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/projects/suricata/issues

Link to ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/8184

Describe changes:

• Replace decremental "while" loops with incremental "for" loops.

Changes from last PR:

• Remove changes for freebsd functions.
• Replace decremental "while" loops with hash configs with "for" loops.

Attaching little reference unit tests, which may be used to inspect difference in generated assembly and results given by changes:
loop_checks.c

Provide values to any of the below to override the defaults.

• To use a Suricata-Verify or Suricata-Update pull request,
  link to the pull request in the respective _BRANCH variable.
• Leave unused overrides blank or remove.

SV_REPO=
SV_BRANCH=
SU_REPO=
SU_BRANCH=

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 23.89937% with 121 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 82.16%. Comparing base (e69c801) to head (e744f1d).
⚠️ Report is 32 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #14804      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.15%   82.16%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1003     1003              
  Lines      263691   263688       -3     
==========================================
+ Hits       216626   216663      +37     
+ Misses      47065    47025      -40     

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus	60.18% <22.64%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
livemode	18.80% <1.88%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
netns	18.91% <1.88%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
pcap	44.65% <2.51%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
suricata-verify	65.46% <15.09%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
unittests	59.23% <4.40%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[catenacyber]

Why is this last one remaining with while ?

Thanks for the rest of the work by the way

[Rx1513]

Why is this last one remaining with while ?

Switching to incremental for loop changes too much logic.

Btw I forgot about for(; match_cnt > 0 ;match_cnt--).

[catenacyber]

Done in #14831

[catenacyber]

Could you please have a green CI ?
See ./scripts/clang-format.sh check-branch

[Rx1513]

Could you please have a green CI ? See ./scripts/clang-format.sh check-branch

It's is a clang-format bug that breaks indentation style. Basically it tries to do this:

    while (match_cnt) {
    ... 
}

    if (have_fw_rules && scratch->default_action == ACTION_DROP) {
    ...
    }
    return action;
}

So I don't think I can do anything. Probably there's something wrong with macros in code.

[Rx1513]

Also not sure what's the problem with pcapng.

[jufajardini]

Also not sure what's the problem with pcapng.

This one is very likely unrelated to your patch.

[victorjulien]

The npcap test fails a bit randomly lately.

[catenacyber]

Could you please have a green CI ? See ./scripts/clang-format.sh check-branch

It's is a clang-format bug that breaks indentation style. Basically it tries to do this:

    while (match_cnt) {
    ... 
}

    if (have_fw_rules && scratch->default_action == ACTION_DROP) {
    ...
    }
    return action;
}

So I don't think I can do anything. Probably there's something wrong with macros in code.

Indeed, but there were also other fixes done in #14831