| To: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: raw ipv6 broken in 2.4.19 |
| From: | Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:38:40 +0000 (GMT) |
| Cc: | gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <200208132218.CAA22224@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello,
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Well, if this is only in combination with zero length, it is not a disaster.
May be. It seems there were no such callers but they
appeared. I'm not sure a comment can avoid further problems.
As for the fix, we don't see often lengths of 0 and 1 for
unaligned addrs, it is in the slow path in csum_partial. IMHO,
it will not hurt if we apply the fix instead of auditing everything.
> Alexey
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [patch] bug prematurely setting nr_frags, kuznet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: raw ipv6 broken in 2.4.19, Martin Josefsson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: raw ipv6 broken in 2.4.19, kuznet |
| Next by Thread: | Re: raw ipv6 broken in 2.4.19, Martin Josefsson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |