Nitpick, wouldn't QLatin1String be better here?

c.f. Marc Mutz's talk about QStringLiteral and QLatin1String: https://youtu.be/Ov7s0GgBbOQ?t=2806

Nitpick, shouldn't there be a "// static" comment like the other method?

Wouldn't a QVector be better here (QVector<QList<QSslError::SslError>>)? that is IIUC what the QList docs and [1] are saying.

[1]https://marcmutz.wordpress.com/effective-qt/containers/

sslMetaData is a QMap<QString, ...>, ie. value() has no QLatin1String overload, calling it with a QLatin1String will work but convert to a QString at runtime (involving a memory allocation), using QStringLiteral avoids that.

In theory, yes. However, changing this here and now would trigger quite some ripple effect through the code, which currently is using QList everywhere, so I'd suggest to do that as a separate change (if at all), to not hide security-relevant changes under lots of QList -> QVector porting noise. The other thing to consider the consistency in this code if we change just a single use from QList to QVector, especially if that's not a performance-sensitive path and Qt6 is supposed to change all this anyway (QList's implementation going away).

Right, value() is what matters here, thanks for explaining.

OK, thanks for explaining.

(But I think there still should be a "// static" comment for that method).

Shouldn't this be 65 now?

You missed a spot