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> References: <200704190521.l3J5Lml8057221@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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, Thomas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1176981846.6599.90.camel>