Re: [PATCH]Enhancements of ip_options_fragment()

2006-01-29 Thread David S. Miller
From: "Wei Yongjun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:29:18 -0800 > I think this problem should not occurred because the patch make the > ipv4 header of a 32 bit alignment. I still think the complicated new code is not justified. Show a real life example where this results in breakag

Re: [PATCH]Enhancements of ip_options_fragment()

2006-01-29 Thread Wei Yongjun
I think this problem should not occurred because the patch make the ipv4 header of a 32 bit alignment. [Please put new lines every 80 characters in your mails] On Monday 30 January 2006 22:44, Wei Yongjun wrote: [1]Summary of the problem: Kernel does not delete the space of the options which

Re: [PATCH]Enhancements of ip_options_fragment()

2006-01-29 Thread Andi Kleen
[Please put new lines every 80 characters in your mails] On Monday 30 January 2006 22:44, Wei Yongjun wrote: > [1]Summary of the problem: > Kernel does not delete the space of the options which not allowed in > fragments. > > [2]Full description of the problem: > ip_options_fragment() just fill

[PATCH]Enhancements of ip_options_fragment()

2006-01-29 Thread Wei Yongjun
[1]Summary of the problem: Kernel does not delete the space of the options which not allowed in fragments. [2]Full description of the problem: ip_options_fragment() just fill options which not allowed in fragments with NOOPs, does not delete the space of the options, following patch has corrected