On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:35:24AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Code changes look fine to me, but several documentation suggestions.
Hmm, after reading the next patch might I suggest to move the
change to push.c actually to the next patch? Both references
to IV_MTU and tun-max-mtu only make sense then, right?
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 06:16:48PM +0200, Arne Schwabe wrote:
> > diff --git a/src/openvpn/push.c b/src/openvpn/push.c
> > index 63257348a..463957a82 100644
> > --- a/src/openvpn/push.c
> > +++ b/src/openvpn/push.c
> > @@ -603,6 +603,22 @@ prepare_push_reply(struct context *c, struct gc_arena
> > *gc,
> > {
> > push_option_fmt(gc, push_list, M_USAGE, "key-derivation tls-ekm");
> > }
> > +
> > + /* Push our mtu to the peer if it supports pushable MTUs */
> > + int client_max_mtu = 0;
> > + const char *iv_mtu = extract_var_peer_info(tls_multi->peer_info,
> > "IV_MTU=", gc);
> > +
> > + if (iv_mtu && sscanf(iv_mtu, "%d", &client_max_mtu) == 1)
>
> random space before sscanf
>
> > + {
> > + push_option_fmt(gc, push_list, M_USAGE, "tun-mtu %d",
> > o->ce.tun_mtu);
> > + if (client_max_mtu < o->ce.tun_mtu)
> > + {
> > + msg(M_WARN, "Warning reported maximum MTU from client (%d) is
> > lower "
>
> Missing colon after "Warning".
>
> > + "than MTU used on the server (%d). Add tun-max-mtu %d "
> > + "to client configuration.", client_max_mtu,
> > + o->ce.tun_mtu, o->ce.tun_mtu);
> > + }
> > + }
> > return true;
> > }
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openvpn-devel mailing list
> Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
_______________________________________________
Openvpn-devel mailing list
Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
