On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 12:29:45PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Horms wrote:
> > Here is the revised patch.
> >
> >
> > [IPVS] Make sure ip_vs_ftp ports are valid
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure what happens in the case of a valid port,
> > at best it'll be silently ignored. This patch ensures th
Horms wrote:
> Here is the revised patch.
>
>
> [IPVS] Make sure ip_vs_ftp ports are valid
>
> I'm not entirely sure what happens in the case of a valid port,
> at best it'll be silently ignored. This patch ensures that
> the port values are unsigned short values, and thus always valid.
>
> Cc: Pa
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 09:44:02AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 01:09:59AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > Horms wrote:
> > > I'm not entirely sure what happens in the case of a valid port,
> > > at best it'll be silently ignored. This patch ignores them a little
> > > more verbo
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 01:09:59AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Horms wrote:
> > I'm not entirely sure what happens in the case of a valid port,
> > at best it'll be silently ignored. This patch ignores them a little
> > more verbosely.
> >
> > Signed-Off-By: Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Horms wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure what happens in the case of a valid port,
> at best it'll be silently ignored. This patch ignores them a little
> more verbosely.
>
> Signed-Off-By: Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Index: linux-2.6/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_ftp.c
>
I'm not entirely sure what happens in the case of a valid port,
at best it'll be silently ignored. This patch ignores them a little
more verbosely.
Signed-Off-By: Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6/net/ipv4/ipvs/ip_vs_ftp.c
===
