in recv_unicast_frag(), the third parameter of the interface_rx() invocation, which is the size of the current header, is wrongly computed.
Signed-off-by: Antonio Quartulli ordex@autistici.org --- routing.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/routing.c b/routing.c index f961cc5..cf8fe0a 100644 --- a/routing.c +++ b/routing.c @@ -990,7 +990,7 @@ int recv_ucast_frag_packet(struct sk_buff *skb, struct hard_iface *recv_if) return NET_RX_SUCCESS;
interface_rx(recv_if->soft_iface, new_skb, recv_if, - sizeof(struct unicast_packet)); + sizeof(*unicast_packet)); return NET_RX_SUCCESS; }
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:35:10 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
in recv_unicast_frag(), the third parameter of the interface_rx() invocation, which is the size of the current header, is wrongly computed.
Signed-off-by: Antonio Quartulli ordex@autistici.org
This patch is based on top of maint, even if it does not really change so much.
Cheers,
On Tuesday 31 January 2012 22:35:10 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
in recv_unicast_frag(), the third parameter of the interface_rx() invocation, which is the size of the current header, is wrongly computed.
Really (actually it is the fourth, but I don't want to talk about that)? Wasn't the reassembled unicast packet just a unicast packet and not a unicast_frag packet (see frag_merge_packet)?
I could be wrong (didn't checked it), but I just have the feeling that the current version could be correct.
Kind regards, Sven
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:53:33PM +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
On Tuesday 31 January 2012 22:35:10 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
in recv_unicast_frag(), the third parameter of the interface_rx() invocation, which is the size of the current header, is wrongly computed.
Really (actually it is the fourth, but I don't want to talk about that)? Wasn't the reassembled unicast packet just a unicast packet and not a unicast_frag packet (see frag_merge_packet)?
I could be wrong (didn't checked it), but I just have the feeling that the current version could be correct.
I double checked a few second ago and yes, you are right. Once the packet has been merged again it is a unicast_packet.
So, please guys, drop this patch.
Regards,
b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org
-
Antonio Quartulli -
Sven Eckelmann