On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 17:28:25 +0000
Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com> wrote:
> Sorry I thought I had made this other fix, can you apply this on top
> of the other one and try that? I have more things to try if this
> doesn’t work, sorry you are playing go between, but I want to make
> sure I know _which_ fix actually fixes the problem, and then clean up
> in followup patches. Thanks,
>
> Josef
>
> On 9/13/17, 8:45 AM, "Laura Abbott" <labb...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 09/12/2017 04:12 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > First I’m super sorry for the top post, I’m at plumbers and I
> > forgot to upload my muttrc to my new cloud instance, so I’m screwed
> > using outlook.
> >
> > I have a completely untested, uncompiled patch that I think will
> > fix the problem, would you mind giving it a go? Thanks,
> >
> > Josef
>
> Thanks for the quick turnaround. Unfortunately, the problem is still
> reproducible according to the reporter.
>
> Thanks,
> Laura
I am confused by the patch that originally caused this:
if (sk->sk_family == AF_INET6)
return ipv6_rcv_saddr_equal(&sk->sk_v6_rcv_saddr,
- &sk2->sk_v6_rcv_saddr,
+ inet6_rcv_saddr(sk2),
sk->sk_rcv_saddr,
sk2->sk_rcv_saddr,
Shouldn't the first argument also be changed to use inet6_rcv_saddr()?
