On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 18:41 +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> (but cc'ing Patrik just to make sure)
> > RFC 2131:
> >
> > secs 2 Filled in by client, seconds elapsed since client
> > began address acquisition or renewal process.
> > @@ -422,7 +423,15 @@ static int client_message_init(sd_dhcp_client *client,
> > DHCPPacket **ret,
> >
> > /* Although 'secs' field is a SHOULD in RFC 2131, certain DHCP
> > servers
> > refuse to issue an DHCP lease if 'secs' is set to zero */
> > - packet->dhcp.secs = htobe16(client->secs);
> > + r = sd_event_now(client->event, clock_boottime_or_monotonic(),
> > &time_now);
> > + if (r < 0)
> > + return r;
> > + assert(time_now >= client->start_time);
> > +
> > + /* seconds between sending first and last DISCOVER
> > + * must always be strictly positive to deal with broken servers */
> > + secs = ((time_now - client->start_time) / USEC_PER_SEC) ? : 1;
> > + packet->dhcp.secs = htobe16(secs);
The previous code assumed that resending a message mean really sending
an identical one in place of the lost one. This change actually nags on
the other end that time has really passed, be it a clue to a DHCP relay
that it should do something else than before. Looking at the RFC snippet
and the patch, I think this is what the RFC actually tried to say.
Cheers,
Patrik
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
