On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Liyang Yu (于立洋1) wrote:
>> Please test my patch since you can reproduce it.
>
> Thanks cong, but Eric had said: "Really, this is not something that
> can be solved by using 'a different initial sequence number'"
> So I don't think it's nessary to t
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Liyang Yu (于立洋1) wrote:
> Yeah，I means that recreate the tunnel again,
> But I don’t think the patch can fix the bug. It only can make the first
> packet received successed. And the follow packet will droped also.
> In function __gre_xmit line 366
> tunnel->o_
Yeah，I means that recreate the tunnel again,
But I don’t think the patch can fix the bug. It only can make the first packet
received successed. And the follow packet will droped also.
In function __gre_xmit line 366
tunnel->o_seqno++;
If you restart from UINT_MAX, the 'o_seqno' of second pac
