Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:24:06 +0200 From: Thomas Karcher <thkarcher@gmx.de> To: Remko Lodder <remko@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/111513: [netinet6] [patch] in6_setscope() sets scope flags wrong Message-ID: <1176981846.6599.90.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <200704190521.l3J5Lml8057221@freefall.freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Hi, > Synopsis: [netinet6] [patch] in6_setscope() sets scope flags wrong > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed > State-Changed-By: remko > State-Changed-When: Thu Apr 19 05:21:46 UTC 2007 > State-Changed-Why: > George and Hajimu regard this as an implementation choice and are not > seeing a bug here. Reflect that in the ticket state -> clsoed. > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=111513 I strongly disagree since an implementation choice should not yield different results. Perhaps George and Hajimu overlooked the use of s6_addr8[1] instead of s6_addr16[1]. in6->s6_addr16[1] = htons(zoneid & 0xffff); ^^ results in ff00:0002:.... which is wrong while in6->s6_addr8[1] = htons(zoneid & 0xff); ^ results in ff02:.... which is definitely different! It would be interesting to hear why they think it is an implementation choice when it leads to different results. Best regards, Thomashome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1176981846.6599.90.camel>