Herbert Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Paul Mackerras <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> So this doesn't change process_input_packet(), which treats the case
>> where the first byte is 0xff (PPP_ALLSTATIONS) but the second byte is
>> 0x03 (PPP_UI) as indicating a packet with a PPP protocol number of
>> 0xff. Arguably that's wrong since PPP protocol 0xff is reserved, and
>> the RFC does envision the possibility of receiving frames where the
>> control field has values other than 0x03.
>
> Your fix is probably needed too. However, I think the issue that Patrick
> was trying to fix is the case where p[0] != PPP_ALLSTATIONS and therefore
> we'd still have a problem there.
Nevermind, I mixed up != with == so your patch is all we need.
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
