Hi,
On 11-11-17 15:22, Gert Doering wrote:
> tun-ipv6 is a no-op nowadays, and we print a warning to let users know -
> which is not helpful for server-pushed tun-ipv6 (which might be the
> result of --server-ipv6 automatically pushing this). So, remove the
> warning if parsing pushed options.
>
> Also, remove the VERIFY_PERMISSION() call here which has side effects
> on the "which class of options got pushed, do we need to act on them
> later on?" flag set.
>
> v2: use existing pull_mode flag
>
> Signed-off-by: Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de>
> ---
> src/openvpn/options.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/openvpn/options.c b/src/openvpn/options.c
> index 641a26e2..4caa2cd1 100644
> --- a/src/openvpn/options.c
> +++ b/src/openvpn/options.c
> @@ -5233,8 +5233,10 @@ add_option(struct options *options,
> }
> else if (streq(p[0], "tun-ipv6") && !p[1])
> {
> - VERIFY_PERMISSION(OPT_P_UP);
> - msg(M_WARN, "Note: option tun-ipv6 is ignored because modern
> operating systems do not need special IPv6 tun handling anymore.");
> + if ( !pull_mode )
The code style suggests this should be spelled as "if (!pull_mode)".
I'll leave it up to you to decide to change that or not.
> + {
> + msg(M_WARN, "Note: option tun-ipv6 is ignored because modern
> operating systems do not need special IPv6 tun handling anymore.");
> + }
> }
> #ifdef ENABLE_IPROUTE
> else if (streq(p[0], "iproute") && p[1] && !p[2])
>
Otherwise this looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Steffan Karger <stef...@karger.me>
Acked-by: Steffan Karger <stef...@karger.me>
-Steffan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Openvpn-devel mailing list
Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
