On 18 May, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Don Lewis wrote:
>>
>> It looks to me like r299512 is changing the format of the client
>> identifier by inserting the struct hardware hlen field into it.
>
> Yes. The problem with r299512 is that it assumed the client_id was
> ac
On 18 May, Ian FREISLICH wrote:
> On 05/18/16 20:19, Don Lewis wrote
>> It looks to me like r299512 is changing the format of the client
>> identifier by inserting the struct hardware hlen field into it. That's
>> not valid if htype is non-zero the way I interpret RFC 2132. On the
>> other hand,
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Don Lewis wrote:
>
> It looks to me like r299512 is changing the format of the client
> identifier by inserting the struct hardware hlen field into it.
Yes. The problem with r299512 is that it assumed the client_id was
actually a valid struct hardware, as the arr
On 05/18/16 20:19, Don Lewis wrote
> It looks to me like r299512 is changing the format of the client
> identifier by inserting the struct hardware hlen field into it. That's
> not valid if htype is non-zero the way I interpret RFC 2132. On the
> other hand, I would think that the server would in
On 05/18/16 19:49, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> Hey Ian,
>
> r299512 incorrectly encoded client identifiers because I misunderstood
> the intent of the sizeof()-scaled client_id. I reverted that change
> and replaced it with r300174, which I believe fixes the first overrun
> more correctly.
Just checked
On 18 May, To: c...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On 18 May, Conrad Meyer wrote:
>> Hey Ian,
>>
>> r299512 incorrectly encoded client identifiers because I misunderstood
>> the intent of the sizeof()-scaled client_id. I reverted that change
>> and replaced it with r300174, which I believe fixes the first
On 18 May, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> Hey Ian,
>
> r299512 incorrectly encoded client identifiers because I misunderstood
> the intent of the sizeof()-scaled client_id. I reverted that change
> and replaced it with r300174, which I believe fixes the first overrun
> more correctly.
>
> (Coverity may s
On 18 May, Ian FREISLICH wrote:
> Hi
>
> I cannot for the life of me figure out why the change in r299512 breaks
> DHCP on one network I use but not on another network.
>
> The only clue I can find is that the request whose response is ignored
> has the following client ID:
> 1:6:0:22:5f:70:a1:d
Hey Ian,
r299512 incorrectly encoded client identifiers because I misunderstood
the intent of the sizeof()-scaled client_id. I reverted that change
and replaced it with r300174, which I believe fixes the first overrun
more correctly.
(Coverity may still complain about CID 1305550, but I don't be
Hi
I cannot for the life of me figure out why the change in r299512 breaks
DHCP on one network I use but not on another network.
The only clue I can find is that the request whose response is ignored
has the following client ID:
1:6:0:22:5f:70:a1:df
The request whose response is use has this cl
10 matches
Mail list logo
