Hi, On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 01:22:35PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > } > - mssval = (opt[2]<<8)+opt[3]; > + mssval = opt[2] << 8; > + mssval += opt[3];
Is this an intentional change, or just a side effect of "something
intermediate"?
> @@ -7260,6 +7260,7 @@ add_option(struct options *options,
> /* value specified, assume encapsulation is not
> * included unless "mtu" follows later */
> options->ce.mssfix = positive_atoi(p[1]);
> + ASSERT(options->ce.mssfix <= UINT16_MAX);
> options->ce.mssfix_encap = false;
> options->ce.mssfix_default = false;
This part of the patch is making me unhappy, thus, NAK. We do have
a way to signal option errors, and ASSERT() is not... your code
would make a client ASSERT() if a server pushes "mssfix 70000".
gert
--
"If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you
feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted
it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor."
Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-devel mailing list Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
