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 netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
