On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:05:32AM -0800, David Stevens wrote:
>
> For the future, maybe we should rename that, or reverse
> the sense of it (in v4 as well). :-)
Yeah it really should be called local_mayfrag.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EM
I think the field name is kind of confusing here. It appears
that "local_df == 1" means "allow fragmentation" and
"local_df == 0" means "don't fragment". But "DF" to me
means "don't fragment", as in "IP_DF", so the field value
is backwards from what I'd expect. And maybe that's
what happened to in
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 01:13:13AM -0500, Bill Fink wrote:
>
> I think the setting of skb->local_def is still backwards in your
> original patch:
You're quite right. Thanks for pointing this out!
[IPV6]: Fix reversed local_df test in ip6_fragment
I managed to reverse the local_df test when forw
Hi Herbert,
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 06:08:28PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > > [IPV6]: Fix IPsec datagram fragmentation
> >
> > Applied, and I'll queue this up to -stable as well.
>
> Sorry, David Ste
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 06:08:28PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>
> > [IPV6]: Fix IPsec datagram fragmentation
>
> Applied, and I'll queue this up to -stable as well.
Sorry, David Stevens just told me that it doesn't work as intended.
[IPV6]: Fix reversed local_df test i
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:04:37 +1100
> [IPV6]: Fix IPsec datagram fragmentation
>
> This is a long-standing bug in the IPsec IPv6 code that breaks
> when we emit a IPsec tunnel-mode datagram packet. The problem
> is that the code
Hi Dave:
[IPV6]: Fix IPsec datagram fragmentation
This is a long-standing bug in the IPsec IPv6 code that breaks
when we emit a IPsec tunnel-mode datagram packet. The problem
is that the code the emits the packet assumes the IPv6 stack
will fragment it later, but the IPv6 stack assumes that
