Thanks for doing these; I hope you guys will have energy for the other
spec fixes to come :)
One thing I noted when reading the comment:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] $B5HF#1QL@(B wrote:
> + /*
> + * Redirect received -> path was valid.
> + * Look, redirects are sent only in response to data packets,
> + * so that this nexthop apparently is reachable. --ANK
> + */
> + dst_confirm(&rt->u.dst);
> + /* Duplicate redirect: silently ignore. */
> + if (neigh == rt->u.dst.neighbour)
> + goto out;
The above applies for "valid" redirects, which have been received
based on the traffic sent.
However, if someone would be forging redirects, the comment would no
I don't know the implications in this case: whether the code needs to
have different assumptions wrt. source of redirects, or whether this
is just a wording issue in the comment above.
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings