ACK. Same patch as in 2.3
Diffing the two *patches* shows differences like this one:
- else if (cipher_kt_mode_ofb_cfb(cipher_kt))
+ else if (mode == EVP_CIPH_CFB_MODE || mode == EVP_CIPH_OFB_MODE)
.. but's not a patch change, but different context (old 2.2 crypto style).
Your
ACK, same patch as in 2.3 (minus the obvious differences in context,
Changes.rst, cmocka).
Your patch has been applied to the release/2.2 branch.
commit 66576f9903cc166072901673ff1e673fa2e29611
Author: Steffan Karger
Date: Thu May 11 23:13:41 2017 +0200
Drop packets instead of assert out
ACK, same patch as in 2.3 (minus the obvious differences in context,
Changes.rst, cmocka).
Your patch has been applied to the release/2.2 branch.
commit 66576f9903cc166072901673ff1e673fa2e29611
Author: Steffan Karger
Date: Thu May 11 23:13:41 2017 +0200
Drop packets instead of assert out
ACK ("stared at code").
Have no ASAN setup here so replicating the original problem involved
a bit of extra msg()'ing and then scratching my head, but I can confirm
that the original math ended up with an integer underflow / unsigned,
and the comarison not firing...
Your patch has been applied
Hi Selva, thanks for your answer.
On 12/06/17 20:23, Selva Nair wrote:
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:41 PM, debbie10t wrote:
Hi,
I have a basic setup and discovered that my W10 client was assigning a
second IPv6 address to TAP even though it is *not* being pushed by the
server. The second addre
13 июн. 2017 г. 7:29 ПП пользователь "debbie10t"
написал:
Hi Selva, thanks for your answer.
On 12/06/17 20:23, Selva Nair wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:41 PM, debbie10t wrote:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> I have a basic setup and discovered that my W10 client was assigning a
>> second IPv6 address to T
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Илья Шипицин wrote:
> I decided to try some tests .. in fact I only did one test.
> I rebooted the PC and now the second IP address has gone.
> (Windows Fast shutdown/reboot disabled .. so full reboot)
>
> I also tried to recreate the problem but so far cannot ..
Rather astonishingly .. I can now reliably recreate the problem !!
As client:
Config-1 assigns 12fc:1918::10:36:101:110/112 to TAP (in tun mode)
Config-2 assigns 12fc:1918::10:8:0:110/112 to TAP (in tun mode)
Following:
1. Administrator command prompt - execute openvp config-1.ovpn
TAP
2017-06-13 23:00 GMT+05:00 Selva Nair :
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Илья Шипицин
> wrote:
>
>> I decided to try some tests .. in fact I only did one test.
>> I rebooted the PC and now the second IP address has gone.
>> (Windows Fast shutdown/reboot disabled .. so full reboot)
>>
>> I als
HI,
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 07:01:22PM +0100, debbie10t wrote:
> Rather astonishingly .. I can now reliably recreate the problem !!
>
> As client:
> Config-1 assigns 12fc:1918::10:36:101:110/112 to TAP (in tun mode)
> Config-2 assigns 12fc:1918::10:8:0:110/112 to TAP (in tun mode)
>
> Fo
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:01 PM, debbie10t wrote:
> As client:
>Config-1 assigns 12fc:1918::10:36:101:110/112 to TAP (in tun mode)
>Config-2 assigns 12fc:1918::10:8:0:110/112 to TAP (in tun mode)
>
> Following:
>
> 1. Administrator command prompt - execute openvp config-1.ovpn
>TAP is
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:19:59PM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
> > 1. Administrator command prompt - execute openvp config-1.ovpn
> >TAP is assigned 12fc:1918::10:36:101:110/112
> > 2. Terminate by closing [X] the command prompt
[..]
>
> I haven't tested this, but if both connections use the
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> > I haven't tested this, but if both connections use the same adapter, this
> > looks possible as you kill the first process without giving it a chance
> to
> > remove the IP first. Addresses are added with store=active so would
> > disappear
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:33:35PM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
> Right :) But we could probably do better using Set instead of Add while
> the address is set using the service. I'm not that familiar with ipapi, but
> looks like SetUnicastIpAddressEnrty instead of AddUnicastIpAddressEntry
> may b
On 13/06/2017 22:37, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:33:35PM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
>> Right :) But we could probably do better using Set instead of Add while
>> the address is set using the service. I'm not that familiar with ipapi, but
>> looks like SetUnicastIpAddres
>
>
> if user is administrator, interactive service is not used.
> well, I did miss that about interactive service.
>
I wonder we should always use the interactive service if available and
add (dont-use-interactive) option, so behaviour is always the same.
Arne
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Arne Schwabe wrote:
> >
> >
> > if user is administrator, interactive service is not used.
> > well, I did miss that about interactive service.
> >
>
> I wonder we should always use the interactive service if available and
> add (dont-use-interactive) option, so b
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:33:35PM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
> > Right :) But we could probably do better using Set instead of Add while
> > the address is set using the service. I'm not that familiar with ipapi,
> but
> > looks like SetUnica
2017-06-14 1:05 GMT+05:00 Selva Nair :
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Arne Schwabe wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> > if user is administrator, interactive service is not used.
>> > well, I did miss that about interactive service.
>> >
>>
>> I wonder we should always use the interactive service if ava
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Илья Шипицин wrote:
> 2017-06-14 1:05 GMT+05:00 Selva Nair :
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Arne Schwabe wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > if user is administrator, interactive service is not used.
>>> > well, I did miss that about interactive service.
>>> >
2017-06-14 1:51 GMT+05:00 Selva Nair :
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Илья Шипицин
> wrote:
>
>> 2017-06-14 1:05 GMT+05:00 Selva Nair :
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Arne Schwabe wrote:
>>>
>
>
> if user is administrator, interactive service is not used.
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
