Dave Johnson wrote:
> Vlad Yasevich writes:
>> Ok. First, this is a different bug, so I would prefer a separate patch.
>> Also, I see the problem and it's ugly, but this solution is not really
>> correct,
>> both conceptually and code wise.
>>
>> Conceptually, the v4 code should never worry about
Vlad Yasevich writes:
> Ok. First, this is a different bug, so I would prefer a separate patch.
> Also, I see the problem and it's ugly, but this solution is not really
> correct,
> both conceptually and code wise.
>
> Conceptually, the v4 code should never worry about V4-mapped addresses and
>
David Miller wrote:
> From: Vlad Yasevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:49:40 -0400
>
>> Feel free to clean it up and submit both patches.
>
> Ping? Somebody?
>
I am head deep in an ugly bug. I might take a break
and do this mindless excercise later today if nobody beats
me
From: Vlad Yasevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:49:40 -0400
> Feel free to clean it up and submit both patches.
Ping? Somebody?
-
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:
Dave Johnson wrote:
> Vlad Yasevich writes:
>> Ok. First, this is a different bug, so I would prefer a separate patch.
>> Also, I see the problem and it's ugly, but this solution is not really
>> correct,
>> both conceptually and code wise.
>>
>> Conceptually, the v4 code should never worry about
Vlad Yasevich writes:
> Ok. First, this is a different bug, so I would prefer a separate patch.
> Also, I see the problem and it's ugly, but this solution is not really
> correct,
> both conceptually and code wise.
>
> Conceptually, the v4 code should never worry about V4-mapped addresses and
>
Dave Johnson wrote:
> Vlad Yasevich writes:
>> Can you explain why the sctp_v4 changes are need for the this case?
>> I don't see how the code in sctp/protocol.c comes into play for this
>> particular bug.
>
> connect() on v6 socket to v4 mapped address will trigger
> sctp_v4_to_sk_daddr:
>
> str
Vlad Yasevich writes:
> Can you explain why the sctp_v4 changes are need for the this case?
> I don't see how the code in sctp/protocol.c comes into play for this
> particular bug.
connect() on v6 socket to v4 mapped address will trigger
sctp_v4_to_sk_daddr:
strace:
socket(PF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM,
Dave Johnson wrote:
> An accept() call on a SCTPv6 socket that returns due to connection of
> a IPv4 mapped peer will fill out the 'struct sockaddr' with a zero
> IPv6 address instead of the IPv4 mapped address of the peer.
>
> This is due to the v4mapped flag not getting copied into the new
> soc
An accept() call on a SCTPv6 socket that returns due to connection of
a IPv4 mapped peer will fill out the 'struct sockaddr' with a zero
IPv6 address instead of the IPv4 mapped address of the peer.
This is due to the v4mapped flag not getting copied into the new
socket on accept() as well as a mi
10 matches
Mail list logo