From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Nov 01 10:46:57 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PCvez-000883-8G for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:46:57 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54144 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PCvew-00087P-Ff for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:46:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCvev-0006ee-FW for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:46:54 -0400 Received: from dukecmfep05.coxmail.com ([68.99.120.40]:58437) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PCvev-0006eG-Ar for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:46:53 -0400 Received: from dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com ([68.99.120.137]) by dukecmfep05.coxmail.com (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20101101144633.KHJO20030.dukecmfep05.coxmail.com@dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com> for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:46:33 -0400 Received: from FW2 ([172.18.18.217]) by dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com with bizsmtp id RqmN1f00D4h0NJL01qmNDG; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:46:22 -0400 From: "Bill Auerbach" To: "'lwip-devel'" Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:46:22 -0400 Message-ID: <001701cb79d3$8d711590$a85340b0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01CB79B2.0661E690" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Act5040nN/SVwreIRwmRTZgxtApiFA== Content-Language: en-us X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) Subject: [lwip-devel] Default for LWIP_RAW X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:46:55 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01CB79B2.0661E690 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, Is it good to do to have this default to 1? I would think it would be rarely used and thus unnecessarily adding code and overhead to lwIP. Bill ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01CB79B2.0661E690 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Default for LWIP_RAW

Hello,

Is = it good to do = to have this = default to 1? I would think it would be rarely used and = thus unnecessarily adding code and overhead to lwIP.

Bill

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01CB79B2.0661E690-- From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 02 10:48:35 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PDIA6-0001sN-9d for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:48:34 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37678 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PDIA1-0007Rp-IH for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:48:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDHy2-0008VE-0L for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:36:07 -0400 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:35735 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDHy1-0008VA-Tk for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:36:05 -0400 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PDHy1-0005cc-HY; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:36:05 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PDHy1-0006WH-Fa; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:36:05 +0000 To: hanhui , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: hanhui X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31525 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/6.0.472.62 Safari/534.3 X-Apparently-From: 58.248.7.153 (Savane authenticated user hanhui03) Message-Id: <20101102-143604.sv73877.5065@savannah.nongnu.org> References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:36:05 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31525] dhcp_stop() should be free the dhcp memory, which in netif. X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:48:32 -0000 URL: Summary: dhcp_stop() should be free the dhcp memory, which in netif. Project: lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack Submitted by: hanhui03 Submitted on: Tue Nov 2 14:36:04 2010 Category: None Severity: 3 - Normal Item Group: Change Request Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: lwIP version: CVS Head _______________________________________________________ Details: dhcp_stop() should add the following code: mem_free(netif->dhcp); netif->dhcp = NULL; _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 02 11:17:58 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PDIcY-0000av-7Y for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:17:58 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54759 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PDIcU-00007z-Ut for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:17:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDIbF-0001pU-5b for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:16:38 -0400 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:40067 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDIbF-0001pM-2P for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:16:37 -0400 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PDIbB-00069r-Qw; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:16:34 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PDIbB-00072A-PK; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:16:33 +0000 To: Kieran Mansley , hanhui , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Kieran Mansley X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:80 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31525 User-Agent: Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.2.15 Version/10.00 X-Apparently-From: 82.69.69.95 (Savane authenticated user kieranm) Message-Id: <20101102-151633.sv11869.57569@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101102-143604.sv73877.5065@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101102-143604.sv73877.5065@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:16:33 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31525] dhcp_stop() should be free the dhcp memory, which in netif. X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:17:57 -0000 Follow-up Comment #1, bug #31525 (project lwip): It looks like this is deliberate: dhcp_start() checks to see if there is an existing client and reuses it if it can. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 02 11:38:23 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PDIwI-0004yD-Pd for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:38:22 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41915 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PDIwF-0004uj-KA for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:38:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDIwE-0006n3-2M for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:38:19 -0400 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:55946 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDIwE-0006mz-10 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:38:18 -0400 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PDIwB-0006Qc-AG; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:38:15 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PDIwB-0007Ji-8b; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:38:15 +0000 To: Kieran Mansley , hanhui , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: hanhui X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31525 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/6.0.472.62 Safari/534.3 X-Apparently-From: 58.248.7.153 (Savane authenticated user hanhui03) Message-Id: <20101102-153814.sv73877.38687@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101102-143604.sv73877.5065@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101102-151633.sv11869.57569@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101102-151633.sv11869.57569@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:38:15 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31525] dhcp_stop() should be free the dhcp memory, which in netif. X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:38:21 -0000 Follow-up Comment #2, bug #31525 (project lwip): I know that dhcp_start() checks to see if there is an existing client and reuses it if it can. But if run the following codes, it will lead to memory leaks. struct netif *netif = (struct netif *)malloc(...); ......; /* Initialize network interface */ dhcp_start(netif); ......; dhcp_release(netif); dhcp_stop(netif); netif_remove(netif); free(netif); _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 02 11:42:45 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PDJ0W-0000kp-BO for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:42:44 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42607 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PDJ0S-0000cF-Gy for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:42:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDJ0P-0007zP-T8 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:42:39 -0400 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:37820 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDJ0P-0007zL-Rj for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:42:37 -0400 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PDJ0M-0006Vd-TW; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:42:34 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PDJ0M-0007NL-P2; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:42:34 +0000 To: Kieran Mansley , Simon Goldschmidt , hanhui , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31525 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 80.153.29.93 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101102-154234.sv42414.1536@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101102-143604.sv73877.5065@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101102-151633.sv11869.57569@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101102-153814.sv73877.38687@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101102-153814.sv73877.38687@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:42:34 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31525] dhcp_stop() should be free the dhcp memory, which in netif. X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:42:42 -0000 Follow-up Comment #3, bug #31525 (project lwip): Then I'd rather vote for an extra function dhcp_cleanup() which does not affect code size if not used (since it will then be thrown away by the linker). You can already prevent this leak by using dhcp_set_struct() to set your custom pointer and prevent dhcp_start() calling mem_malloc(). _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Wed Nov 03 10:22:49 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PDeEj-0006w2-3n for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 10:22:49 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51948 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PDeEg-0006vT-7m for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 10:22:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDeEf-0005J5-4E for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 10:22:46 -0400 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:52201 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDeEf-0005J0-1O for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 10:22:45 -0400 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PDeEe-00083s-7n; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:22:44 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PDeEe-0006Wn-5p; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:22:44 +0000 To: Bill Auerbach , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Bill Auerbach X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31535 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0E) X-Apparently-From: 98.174.85.143 (Savane authenticated user billauerbach) Message-Id: <20101103-102243.sv64179.31610@savannah.nongnu.org> References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:22:44 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31535] httpserver_raw doesn't run with default opt.h X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:22:47 -0000 URL: Summary: httpserver_raw doesn't run with default opt.h Project: lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack Submitted by: billauerbach Submitted on: Wed 03 Nov 2010 10:22:43 AM EDT Category: Contrib Severity: 3 - Normal Item Group: Faulty Behaviour Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: lwIP version: CVS Head _______________________________________________________ Details: The default TCP_SND_BUF (265) in opt.h is too small. 1024 works but is a bit choppy loading. 2028 is better. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Nov 08 16:59:08 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PFZk4-00057D-NO for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:59:08 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39927 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PFZk2-00053T-63 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:59:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFZjx-0007Du-0k for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:59:02 -0500 Received: from [64.141.41.117] (port=49955 helo=mail.inicotech.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFZjw-0007DU-Pt for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:59:00 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.inicotech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CEDA530078 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:00:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from mail.inicotech.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail-server.cg.shawcable.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ESSymTtfwHmX for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:00:32 -0700 (MST) Received: from webmail.inicotech.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.inicotech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243FE530072 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:00:32 -0700 (MST) Received: from 70.64.68.218 (SquirrelMail authenticated user delamer) by webmail.inicotech.com with HTTP; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:00:32 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:00:32 -0700 (MST) From: "Ivan Delamer" To: lwip-devel@nongnu.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) Subject: [lwip-devel] IPv6 design considerations X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ivan Delamer , lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 21:59:07 -0000 Hi All, As I let you know a couple of weeks ago, I'm working on IPv6 support in LwIP. So far things are going well and there should be something useful i= n a few weeks. The objective is to simultaneously support IPv4 and IPv6. IPv6 support ca= n be commented out through #defines and #ifs so that code size and memory use are not affected for IPv4 only compilation. In order to achieve this support, not only need to insert new code and struct fields in #if blocks, but some struct fields need to be changed. S= o I want to put up some early design decisions for debate to make sure I ge= t it done right the first time. Please provide any feedback or suggestions that are applicable. 1) IP_PCB I have changed the field: ip_addr_t local_ip; to union { ip_addr_t ip4; ip6_addr_t ip6; } local_ip; Same for remote_ip. I have also added a u8_t isipv6; field to determine i= f the PCB is for a v4 or v6 connection. All the IPv6 fields are #if'ed out if necessary so that any pcbs remain the same size for v4-only compilation. This requires some refactoring, as all code must be changed as follows: pcb->local_ip to: pcb->local_ip.ip4 I hope it is acceptable to make this change throughout? 2) tcp_input, udp_input, raw_input, icmp6_input When these functions are called, the pbuf points to the IP header. The first thing these functions do is call pbuf_header and advance the pointer. It would be very useful if these input functions were called wit= h the pbuf pointing to the IP payload. Some of the reasons are: - v4 and v6 headers have different lenghts - v6 header lengths are difficult to calculate if there are IP options - Code would be more compact if the header removal code is in only one pl= ace For those exceptional scenarios where tcp/udp need to take some info from the IP header, this can be done through ip_current_header() Would this be another accepatable change? 3) netif struct I have added an array of ip6_addr_t and some pointers to dhcp6 and autoip= 6 structs. This seems pretty straight forward. I also added a new output function "output6" and and input function "input6". These are the netif->output and netif->input equivalents for v6 packets. I thought ot keeping the original functions, but the input and output functions would have to be bridges to ARP (v4) and ND (v6) modules anyways, so not worth it. Cheers Ivan From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Nov 08 17:18:25 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PFa2j-0003iK-FC for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:18:25 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50559 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PFa2g-0003bl-NL for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:18:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFa2f-0002LD-QN for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:18:22 -0500 Received: from recoil.dh.bytemark.co.uk ([89.16.177.154]:18890 helo=dark.recoil.org) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFa2f-0002Kx-DD for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:18:21 -0500 Received: (qmail 9256 invoked by uid 634); 8 Nov 2010 22:18:18 -0000 Received: from cpc2-cmbg6-0-0-cust777.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com (HELO [192.168.2.23]) (81.107.35.10) (smtp-auth username remote@recoil.org, mechanism cram-md5) by dark.recoil.org (qpsmtpd/0.83) with ESMTPA; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 22:18:18 +0000 Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] IPv6 design considerations Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Kieran Mansley X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:18:16 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> To: Ivan Delamer , lwip-devel X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on dark.recoil.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: OpenBSD 3.0-3.9 Cc: X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 22:18:23 -0000 On 8 Nov 2010, at 23:00, Ivan Delamer wrote: > Please provide any feedback or suggestions > that are applicable. All sound like good solutions to me. Kieran From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Nov 08 17:21:35 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PFa5n-0006QS-I4 for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:21:35 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51922 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PFa5l-0006Q3-8y for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:21:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFa5k-0002uA-HL for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:21:33 -0500 Received: from dukecmfep05.coxmail.com ([68.99.120.40]:35034) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFa5k-0002u2-CY for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:21:32 -0500 Received: from dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com ([68.99.120.137]) by dukecmfep05.coxmail.com (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20101108222123.JDOO20030.dukecmfep05.coxmail.com@dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 17:21:23 -0500 Received: from FW2 ([172.18.18.217]) by dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com with bizsmtp id UmMN1f0044h0NJL01mMNm8; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:21:23 -0500 From: "Bill Auerbach" To: "'Ivan Delamer'" , "'lwip-devel'" References: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> In-Reply-To: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> Subject: RE: [lwip-devel] IPv6 design considerations Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 17:21:22 -0500 Message-ID: <000701cb7f93$467cb890$d37629b0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Act/kZgoLokt3929QnCY75PnpFpToQAAO9Jg Content-Language: en-us X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) Cc: X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 22:21:34 -0000 Ivan, >This requires some refactoring, as all code must be changed as follows: > pcb->local_ip to: pcb->local_ip.ip4 > >I hope it is acceptable to make this change throughout? You can probably use a conditional macro: #if IPV4 #define local_ip local_ip.ip4 #else // both IPv4 and IPv6 #define local_ip local_ip #endif Of course, this must be included *after* the local_ip union declaration. So for IPV4 the source looks the same and for IPv4/IPv6 the union is used. In any case, I'm trying to help find a way to not edit all of the references - it should be possible. The preprocessor is quite powerful. Bill From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Nov 08 19:10:19 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PFbn1-00071S-8H for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 19:10:19 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51014 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PFbmy-00070v-7H for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 19:10:17 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFbmw-00061i-Qa for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 19:10:16 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:54470 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFbmw-00061J-Op for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 19:10:14 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PFbmw-000722-32; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:10:14 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PFbmu-0002RD-AM; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:10:13 +0000 To: Ken MacKay , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Ken MacKay X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31590 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_4; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Safari/533.18.5 X-Apparently-From: 96.53.55.102 (Savane authenticated user kmackay) Message-Id: <20101109-001010.sv80768.99794@savannah.nongnu.org> References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:10:12 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31590] getsockopt(... SO_ERROR ...) gives EINPROGRESS after a successful nonblocking connection. X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:10:17 -0000 URL: Summary: getsockopt(... SO_ERROR ...) gives EINPROGRESS after a successful nonblocking connection. Project: lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack Submitted by: kmackay Submitted on: Tue 09 Nov 2010 12:10:10 AM GMT Category: TCP Severity: 3 - Normal Item Group: Faulty Behaviour Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: lwIP version: CVS Head _______________________________________________________ Details: If I create a new TCP socket and set it to be nonblocking, then call connect(), it returns -1 with errno set to EINPROGRESS as expected. I then call select() with the socket in the write set to determine when the connection has succeeded. This also works as expected. Now I need to determine if the socket is actually connected, or errored out. I use getsockopt(socket, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ERROR, ...) to get the socket error code if any. On other platforms (Windows, OSX, Linux), if the connection has been successful then the socket error code is 0. However, when using lwIP, the socket error code is EINPROGRESS even after a successful connection has been made. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 09 02:05:29 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PFiGn-0001zU-Ma for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 02:05:29 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48026 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PFiGN-0001d3-Mr for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 02:05:27 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFiG1-0002y1-Gx for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 02:05:03 -0500 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]:53560 helo=mail.gmx.net) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFiG1-0002xc-24 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 02:04:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 5694 invoked by uid 0); 9 Nov 2010 07:04:38 -0000 Received: from 80.153.29.93 by www167.gmx.net with HTTP; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:04:35 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:04:35 +0100 From: "Simon Goldschmidt" In-Reply-To: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> Message-ID: <20101109070435.263130@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] IPv6 design considerations To: Ivan Delamer , lwip-devel X-Authenticated: #286948 X-Flags: 0001 X-Mailer: WWW-Mail 6100 (Global Message Exchange) X-Priority: 3 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX192gF5pftJ2OC29aCkFybpEMm4RCw1ndyIVbfrUYr 0jjm7k+rOdBWvotMqZ+JazzRtWnYEPykzN2g== Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-GMX-UID: 64exf4QoeWUkS5YGbW9nMAEjL0tsZs2o X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Cc: X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:05:27 -0000 "Ivan Delamer" wrote: > 1) IP_PCB > > I have changed the field: > ip_addr_t local_ip; > to > union { > ip_addr_t ip4; > ip6_addr_t ip6; > } local_ip; > > Same for remote_ip. I have also added a u8_t isipv6; field to determine if > the PCB is for a v4 or v6 connection. If that's enough that's fine. However, I would have thought we would need a new ip_addr_t-like struct that contains both the union and a type information (i.e. "isipv6"). For example, after creating a new tcp pcb, it would be nice to just pass in the address and connect to whatever the address points to. Otherwise, you would need different connect functions for v4 and v6 (as the address then has a different type). The downside is that the size of ipv4 addresses increases (which is quite optimal with 4 bytes, currently). > [..] > This requires some refactoring, as all code must be changed as follows: > pcb->local_ip to: pcb->local_ip.ip4 With the above proposal, only the code that specifically knows it works on v4 addresses has to be changed (i.e. ".ip4" added), which shouldn't include too many files. > 2) tcp_input, udp_input, raw_input, icmp6_input > [..] Agreed. The current state is a bit awkward, anyway (it has been like that for "historical" reasons: ip_current_header has only been introduced lately). > 3) netif struct > > I have added an array of ip6_addr_t and some pointers to dhcp6 and autoip6 > structs. This seems pretty straight forward. Why add an array of ipv6 addresses? I would have thought on link-local address and one routable address should be enough for an embedded device? Did you implement dhcp6 already? I don't think you can just reuse dhcpv4 (which should be moved to the ipv4 subdirectory, btw), can you? Oh, and isn't autoip a v4-only protocol? I thought v6 has link-local addresses assigned automatically? > I also added a new output function "output6" and and input function > "input6". Seems like the way to go, yes. I really appreciate your effort on this! I do hope this can be merged to CVS in the near future. Simon -- GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos. Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 09 03:58:07 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PFk1n-0005EC-Av for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 03:58:07 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39431 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PFk1g-0005AL-BE for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 03:58:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFk1a-0001sK-GS for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 03:58:00 -0500 Received: from smtp2b.orange.fr ([80.12.242.146]:39884) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFk1a-0001ru-7J for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 03:57:54 -0500 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2b26.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B61F7800031B for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:57:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2b26.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A94228000336 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:57:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from SRV-MSG.ATEIS (LMontsouris-156-24-48-5.w193-251.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.251.75.5]) by mwinf2b26.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 76458800031B for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:57:51 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20101109085751484.76458800031B@mwinf2b26.orange.fr Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Subject: RE: [lwip-devel] IPv6 design considerations X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:57:44 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20101109070435.263130@gmx.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [lwip-devel] IPv6 design considerations Thread-Index: Act/3IoG81QZl5N9T6CR2NkANEQZzwADhqDA References: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> <20101109070435.263130@gmx.net> From: "Stephane Lesage" To: "lwip-devel" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:58:05 -0000 DQoNCj4gPiBJIGhhdmUgYWRkZWQgYW4gYXJyYXkgb2YgaXA2X2FkZHJfdCBhbmQgc29tZSBwb2lu dGVycyB0byBkaGNwNiBhbmQNCj4gYXV0b2lwNg0KPiA+IHN0cnVjdHMuIFRoaXMgc2VlbXMgcHJl dHR5IHN0cmFpZ2h0IGZvcndhcmQuDQo+IA0KPiBXaHkgYWRkIGFuIGFycmF5IG9mIGlwdjYgYWRk cmVzc2VzPyBJIHdvdWxkIGhhdmUgdGhvdWdodCBvbiBsaW5rLWxvY2FsDQo+IGFkZHJlc3MgYW5k IG9uZSByb3V0YWJsZSBhZGRyZXNzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBlbm91Z2ggZm9yIGFuIGVtYmVkZGVkDQo+ IGRldmljZT8NCj4gDQo+IERpZCB5b3UgaW1wbGVtZW50IGRoY3A2IGFscmVhZHk/IEkgZG9uJ3Qg dGhpbmsgeW91IGNhbiBqdXN0IHJldXNlDQo+IGRoY3B2NCAod2hpY2ggc2hvdWxkIGJlIG1vdmVk IHRvIHRoZSBpcHY0IHN1YmRpcmVjdG9yeSwgYnR3KSwgY2FuIHlvdT8NCj4gDQo+IE9oLCBhbmQg aXNuJ3QgYXV0b2lwIGEgdjQtb25seSBwcm90b2NvbD8gSSB0aG91Z2h0IHY2IGhhcyBsaW5rLWxv Y2FsDQo+IGFkZHJlc3NlcyBhc3NpZ25lZCBhdXRvbWF0aWNhbGx5Pw0KDQpIaSwNCg0KWW91J3Jl IHJpZ2h0LCBJUHY2IGxpbmstbG9jYWwgYWRkcmVzc2VzIGFyZSBtb3JlIG9yIGxlc3MgZXF1aXZh bGVudCB0byBBdXRvSVAuDQpCdXQgaXQncyB1c2luZyB0aGUgTUFDIGFkZHJlc3MgZm9yIHRoZSBs b3dlciA2NCBiaXRzLg0KSW4gYWRkaXRpb24sIHlvdSBjYW4gImFub255bWl6ZSIgdGhlIGFkZHJl c3NlcyBsaWtlIEF1dG9JUA0KDQpJUHY2IHdhcyBkZXNpZ25lZCBmb3IgYXV0b2NvbmZpZ3VyYXRp b24gd2l0aCBSb3V0ZXIgQWR2ZXJ0aXNlbWVudCAoUkEpIHBhY2tldHMuDQpUaGUgcm91dGVyIHNl bmRzIHRoZSA2NCBiaXRzIHByZWZpeCBvbiB0aGUgTEFOLCB0aGVuIHRoZSBub2RlcyBhdXRvY29u ZmlndXJlIHRoZWlyIGFkZHJlc3MgdXNpbmcgdGhlIG1ldGhvZHMgYWJvdmUuDQoNCkRIQ1B2NiBo YXMgYmVlbiBhZGRlZCBmb3Igc3BlY2lmaWMgbmVlZHMgYW5kIHNob3VsZCBub3QgYmUgdXNlZCBp biBtb3N0IGNhc2VzLg0KQnV0IGl0J3MgbmljZSB0byBoYXZlLCBhbmQgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBiZSBk aWZmaWN1bHQgdG8gaW1wbGVtZW50Lg0KDQpIb3dldmVyIHdlIG5lZWQgdGhlIGVxdWl2YWxlbnQg b24gUFBQLg0KDQotLSANClN0ZXBoYW5lIExlc2FnZQ0KDQo= From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 09 07:06:11 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PFmxm-0000JW-Tv for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:06:11 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44102 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PFmxU-0000CP-SX for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:06:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFmxI-0005NL-JL for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:05:52 -0500 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:40132 helo=mail.gmx.net) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFmxI-0005N4-7k for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:05:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 31545 invoked by uid 0); 9 Nov 2010 12:05:38 -0000 Received: from 80.153.29.93 by www130.gmx.net with HTTP; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:05:36 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:05:36 +0100 From: "Simon Goldschmidt" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20101109120536.305910@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> <20101109070435.263130@gmx.net> Subject: RE: [lwip-devel] IPv6 design considerations To: lwip-devel X-Authenticated: #286948 X-Flags: 0001 X-Mailer: WWW-Mail 6100 (Global Message Exchange) X-Priority: 3 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19RowUkL0BRXwt1ZDTtUPuZeSUkujyWMZ9EfXipR4 KcUmdS/ap6W4TtzhrMI+Ki4QUZwkR67/kC7g== Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-GMX-UID: JAvuexYObGInQ50WaWRn0z9vcmZ1Zlz4 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 12:06:09 -0000 "Stephane Lesage" wrote: > DHCPv6 has been added for specific needs and should not be used in most > cases. > But it's nice to have, and should not be difficult to implement. I haven't looked into it so far, do you know whether the existing DHCP code can be (partly) reused for DHCPv6? > However we need the equivalent on PPP. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here? That PPP needs DHCPv6 or that we need PPP for IPv6??? Simon -- GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos. Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 09 08:07:43 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PFnvL-0000Hy-5C for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:07:43 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55054 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PFnvI-0000FU-8B for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:07:41 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFnvH-0002eI-1r for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:07:39 -0500 Received: from dukecmfep05.coxmail.com ([68.99.120.40]:33377) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFnvG-0002dy-RW for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:07:39 -0500 Received: from dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com ([68.99.120.137]) by dukecmfep05.coxmail.com (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20101109130727.PQGI20030.dukecmfep05.coxmail.com@dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com> for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:07:27 -0500 Received: from FW2 ([172.18.18.217]) by dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com with bizsmtp id V17S1f0024h0NJL0117Sdo; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:07:27 -0500 From: "Bill Auerbach" To: "'lwip-devel'" References: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> <20101109070435.263130@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <20101109070435.263130@gmx.net> Subject: RE: [lwip-devel] IPv6 design considerations Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:07:26 -0500 Message-ID: <000e01cb800f$0eba5b70$2c2f1250$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Act/3JDb2Z4Tsd3MTDWxVz0WpafTaAAMZskw Content-Language: en-us X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:07:41 -0000 >If that's enough that's fine. However, I would have thought we would >need a new ip_addr_t-like struct that contains both the union and a = type >information (i.e. "isipv6"). For example, after creating a new tcp pcb, >it would be nice to just pass in the address and connect to whatever = the >address points to. Otherwise, you would need different connect = functions >for v4 and v6 (as the address then has a different type). > >The downside is that the size of ipv4 addresses increases (which is >quite optimal with 4 bytes, currently). Maybe the 'isipv6' flag can be #if'ed out as well so the typedef for an = IPv4 build is as it is now. You would need more possibly empty macros = to test the flag and to reference the ip address. The good part about = keeping it typedef'ed to a struct is that the compiler will do the copy = whether it's IPv4 or IPv6 everywhere it's copied. And most compilers = are smart about seeing a 4-byte struct copy and *not* using memcpy. Bill From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 09 08:29:54 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PFoGo-0003hw-21 for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:29:54 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46254 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PFoGl-0003eV-IE for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:29:52 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFoGk-0008JC-Il for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:29:51 -0500 Received: from recoil.dh.bytemark.co.uk ([89.16.177.154]:28622 helo=dark.recoil.org) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFoGk-0008Ik-BG for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:29:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 9643 invoked by uid 634); 9 Nov 2010 13:29:48 -0000 Received: from 16.186.34.193.bridgep.com (HELO [10.17.20.20]) (193.34.186.16) (smtp-auth username remote@recoil.org, mechanism cram-md5) by dark.recoil.org (qpsmtpd/0.83) with ESMTPA; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:29:48 +0000 Subject: RE: [lwip-devel] IPv6 design considerations From: Kieran Mansley To: lwip-devel In-Reply-To: <000e01cb800f$0eba5b70$2c2f1250$@com> References: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> <20101109070435.263130@gmx.net> <000e01cb800f$0eba5b70$2c2f1250$@com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:29:46 +0000 Message-Id: <1289309386.2845.13.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on dark.recoil.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: OpenBSD 3.0-3.9 X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:29:52 -0000 On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 08:07 -0500, Bill Auerbach wrote: > >If that's enough that's fine. However, I would have thought we would > >need a new ip_addr_t-like struct that contains both the union and a type > >information (i.e. "isipv6"). For example, after creating a new tcp pcb, > >it would be nice to just pass in the address and connect to whatever the > >address points to. Otherwise, you would need different connect functions > >for v4 and v6 (as the address then has a different type). > > > >The downside is that the size of ipv4 addresses increases (which is > >quite optimal with 4 bytes, currently). > > Maybe the 'isipv6' flag can be #if'ed out as well so the typedef for > an IPv4 build is as it is now. You would need more possibly empty > macros to test the flag and to reference the ip address. The good > part about keeping it typedef'ed to a struct is that the compiler will > do the copy whether it's IPv4 or IPv6 everywhere it's copied. And > most compilers are smart about seeing a 4-byte struct copy and *not* > using memcpy. In general I'm not all that concerned about keeping it looking like it is now in the case where you don't have IPv6 configured. If we go down that route then IPv6 support will always be effectively bolted-on rather than designed-in. I'm happy to make exceptions in the cases where there are good reasons, and this could well be one of them due to the efficiency of having 4 byte address structs for IPv4. I just don't want to make the implementation of IPv6 unnecessarily convoluted just to preserve the current IPv4 code semantics. Kieran From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 09 08:32:37 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PFoJR-0006Ag-61 for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:32:37 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48077 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PFoJP-00069i-2k for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:32:35 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFoJN-0000Xi-Tg for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:32:34 -0500 Received: from recoil.dh.bytemark.co.uk ([89.16.177.154]:29212 helo=dark.recoil.org) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFoJN-0000XR-KK for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:32:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 29010 invoked by uid 634); 9 Nov 2010 13:32:32 -0000 Received: from 16.186.34.193.bridgep.com (HELO [10.17.20.20]) (193.34.186.16) (smtp-auth username remote@recoil.org, mechanism cram-md5) by dark.recoil.org (qpsmtpd/0.83) with ESMTPA; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:32:32 +0000 Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] IPv6 design considerations From: Kieran Mansley To: lwip-devel In-Reply-To: <20101109070435.263130@gmx.net> References: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> <20101109070435.263130@gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:32:30 +0000 Message-Id: <1289309550.2845.16.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on dark.recoil.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: OpenBSD 3.0-3.9 X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:32:36 -0000 On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 08:04 +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > If that's enough that's fine. However, I would have thought we would > need a new ip_addr_t-like struct that contains both the union and a > type information (i.e. "isipv6"). For example, after creating a new > tcp pcb, it would be nice to just pass in the address and connect to > whatever the address points to. Otherwise, you would need different > connect functions for v4 and v6 (as the address then has a different > type). I agree that duplicating code for the two different address families would be best avoided, so adding type information will be essential. > The downside is that the size of ipv4 addresses increases (which is > quite optimal with 4 bytes, currently). Is that really a significant downside? ip_addr_t is already passed around as a pointer rather than a value so I would not expect the effect of the difference in size of adding the type field to be significant. Perhaps I've missed something about ip_addr_t being 4 bytes? Kieran From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 09 09:00:33 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PFokS-00053n-Ff for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 09:00:32 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39043 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PFokN-00051z-M4 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 09:00:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFokM-0006c6-GC for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 09:00:27 -0500 Received: from smtp27.orange.fr ([80.12.242.94]:35353) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFokM-0006bp-C7 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 09:00:26 -0500 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2703.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 44FBC1C00A76 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:00:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2703.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3470B1C00A58 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:00:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from SRV-MSG.ATEIS (LMontsouris-156-24-48-5.w193-251.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.251.75.5]) by mwinf2703.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id EC7821C00A76 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:00:23 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20101109140023968.EC7821C00A76@mwinf2703.orange.fr Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Subject: RE: [lwip-devel] IPv6 design considerations X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:00:23 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20101109120536.305910@gmx.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [lwip-devel] IPv6 design considerations Thread-Index: AcuABs0QuphOqOyhRmKY52abon9WqgADuKww References: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com><20101109070435.263130@gmx.net> <20101109120536.305910@gmx.net> From: "Stephane Lesage" To: "lwip-devel" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:00:29 -0000 DQoNCj4gSSdtIGFmcmFpZCBJIGRvbid0IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgd2hhdCB5b3UgbWVhbiBoZXJlPyBU aGF0IFBQUCBuZWVkcyBESENQdjYNCj4gb3IgdGhhdCB3ZSBuZWVkIFBQUCBmb3IgSVB2Nj8/Pw0K DQpJIG1lYW4gdGhhdCB3ZSBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIGFibGUgdG8gZ2V0IElQdjYgYWRkcmVzcyBmcm9t IFBQUC4NCkFuZCBhbHNvIHJvdXRlIElQdjYgcGFja2V0cyBvdmVyIFBQUC4NCi0+IG1hbmFnZSBJ UFY2Q1AgaGVhZGVyDQpodHRwOi8vd3d3LmZhcXMub3JnL3JmY3MvcmZjMjQ3Mi5odG1sDQoNCi0t IA0KU3RlcGhhbmUNCg0KDQoNCg0K From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 09 10:05:12 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PFpl2-0001ua-Do for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:05:12 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51103 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PFpl0-0001uA-OG for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:05:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFpky-0003T7-TN for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:05:10 -0500 Received: from [64.141.41.117] (port=38755 helo=mail.inicotech.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFpky-0003Sf-Hq for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:05:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.inicotech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EB1530078; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:06:48 -0700 (MST) Received: from mail.inicotech.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail-server.cg.shawcable.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YycBaD+dhBv3; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:06:45 -0700 (MST) Received: from webmail.inicotech.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.inicotech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B12530072; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:06:45 -0700 (MST) Received: from 70.64.68.218 (SquirrelMail authenticated user delamer) by webmail.inicotech.com with HTTP; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:06:45 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <52539.70.64.68.218.1289318805.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> In-Reply-To: <20101109070435.263130@gmx.net> References: <62730.70.64.68.218.1289257232.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> <20101109070435.263130@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:06:45 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] IPv6 design considerations From: "Ivan Delamer" To: "Simon Goldschmidt" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) Cc: lwip-devel X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ivan Delamer , lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:05:11 -0000 Hello All and thank you for the feedback. I will look into using the pre-processor as suggested by Bill, however I must say that I did manually refactor the code in tcp/udp/raw/api and it took less than an hour. I like seeing the IPv4 nametag on addresses because the transport stack layers are tightly coupled at parts (for efficiency), and it seems good to see clearly if it is coupled to IPv4 or IPv6. The array of IPv6 addresses is size configurable via LWIP_IPv6_NUM_ADDRESSES, and could be as low as 1 for link-local-only setups. AutoIP6 is indeed Address Autoconfiguration as per RFC , using RA message= s as mentioned by Stephane. I kept the 'autoip' name for historical reasons= , but could be changed. DHCPv6 is just a placeholder for now. I am not sure how much code can be reused, but it should be possible to have a minimal implementation available with a couple days effort. About having IPv4 and IPv6 addresses all in one struct/union. I passed on that idea for now for efficiency. I was thinking to follow the "one struc= t for both" approach for Inet addresses used in the sockets layer. But I haven't looked deep into this. With the current approach of having a unio= n in the PCB, it should not be hard to move that union out to ip_addr_t wit= h little impact on the rest of the code. Cheers Ivan On Tue, November 9, 2010 00:04, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > > "Ivan Delamer" wrote: >> 1) IP_PCB >> >> I have changed the field: >> ip_addr_t local_ip; >> to >> union { >> ip_addr_t ip4; >> ip6_addr_t ip6; >> } local_ip; >> >> Same for remote_ip. I have also added a u8_t isipv6; field to determin= e >> if >> the PCB is for a v4 or v6 connection. > > If that's enough that's fine. However, I would have thought we would ne= ed > a new ip_addr_t-like struct that contains both the union and a type > information (i.e. "isipv6"). For example, after creating a new tcp pcb,= it > would be nice to just pass in the address and connect to whatever the > address points to. Otherwise, you would need different connect function= s > for v4 and v6 (as the address then has a different type). > > The downside is that the size of ipv4 addresses increases (which is qui= te > optimal with 4 bytes, currently). > >> [..] >> This requires some refactoring, as all code must be changed as follows= : >> pcb->local_ip to: pcb->local_ip.ip4 > > With the above proposal, only the code that specifically knows it works= on > v4 addresses has to be changed (i.e. ".ip4" added), which shouldn't > include too many files. > >> 2) tcp_input, udp_input, raw_input, icmp6_input >> [..] > > Agreed. The current state is a bit awkward, anyway (it has been like th= at > for "historical" reasons: ip_current_header has only been introduced > lately). > > >> 3) netif struct >> >> I have added an array of ip6_addr_t and some pointers to dhcp6 and >> autoip6 >> structs. This seems pretty straight forward. > > Why add an array of ipv6 addresses? I would have thought on link-local > address and one routable address should be enough for an embedded devic= e? > > Did you implement dhcp6 already? I don't think you can just reuse dhcpv= 4 > (which should be moved to the ipv4 subdirectory, btw), can you? > > Oh, and isn't autoip a v4-only protocol? I thought v6 has link-local > addresses assigned automatically? > >> I also added a new output function "output6" and and input function >> "input6". > > Seems like the way to go, yes. > > I really appreciate your effort on this! I do hope this can be merged t= o > CVS in the near future. > > Simon > -- > GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit =C3=BCber 300 Videos. > Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome > From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 16 09:57:16 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PIMyC-00065H-Eq for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:57:16 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47382 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PIMy9-00063X-La for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:57:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PIMy8-0005bP-33 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:57:13 -0500 Received: from mail1.securitas-direct.com ([195.170.189.45]:64862) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PIMy7-0005am-Tr for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:57:12 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,206,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="6219473" Received: from unknown (HELO sdwands2.sec.intra) ([172.30.40.21]) by mail1.securitas-direct.com with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2010 15:57:08 +0100 To: lwip-devel@nongnu.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-KeepSent: 22537CE0:5435E8B7-C12577DD:00518F7B; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5 December 05, 2008 Message-ID: From: Fredrik Hederstierna Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:57:08 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on SDWanDS2/System/DIR/SECURITAS(Release 8.5.1|September 28, 2009) at 2010-11-16 14:57:08 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_mixed 00518EBCC12577DD_=" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: [lwip-devel] Patch for PAP uninitialized variable X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:57:14 -0000 --=_mixed 00518EBCC12577DD_= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00518EBCC12577DD_=" --=_alternative 00518EBCC12577DD_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi I found a possible uninitialized variable issue in PAP. In "pap.c" function "upap_rauthreq(...)" The variable int msglen; Is put as out-parameter to: retcode = check_passwd(...); but current implementation does not set it at all. Then two lines later the value is used in function: upap_sresp(u, retcode, id, msg, msglen); upap_sresp(...) { .... PUTCHAR(msglen, outp); BCOPY(msg, outp, msglen); Also "msg" is not checked for NULL. I attach a simple patch, but also NULL should be checked for "msg" I guess. Probably is this code never used, but nevertheless. Thanks and Best Regards/Fredrik --=_alternative 00518EBCC12577DD_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Hi
I found a possible uninitialized variable issue in PAP.

In  "pap.c" function "upap_rauthreq(...)"
The variable

    int msglen;

Is put as out-parameter to:

    retcode = check_passwd(...);

but current implementation does not set it at all.
Then two lines later the value is used in function:

    upap_sresp(u, retcode, id, msg, msglen);

upap_sresp(...)
{
  ....
  PUTCHAR(msglen, outp);
  BCOPY(msg, outp, msglen);

Also "msg" is not checked for NULL.
I attach a simple patch, but also NULL should be checked for "msg" I guess.
Probably is this code never used, but nevertheless.



Thanks and Best Regards/Fredrik --=_alternative 00518EBCC12577DD_=-- --=_mixed 00518EBCC12577DD_= Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="pap.patch" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pap.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PyBwYXAucGF0Y2gKSW5kZXg6IHNyYy9uZXRpZi9wcHAvYXV0aC5jCj09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0KUkNTIGZp bGU6IC9zb3VyY2VzL2x3aXAvbHdpcC9zcmMvbmV0aWYvcHBwL2F1dGguYyx2CnJldHJpZXZpbmcg cmV2aXNpb24gMS4yMQpkaWZmIC11IC04IC1wIC1yMS4yMSBhdXRoLmMKLS0tIHNyYy9uZXRpZi9w cHAvYXV0aC5jCTExIE1heSAyMDEwIDE4OjExOjQ2IC0wMDAwCTEuMjEKKysrIHNyYy9uZXRpZi9w cHAvYXV0aC5jCTE2IE5vdiAyMDEwIDE0OjQ4OjUzIC0wMDAwCkBAIC04NjIsMTcgKzg2MiwxNyBA QCB1X2NoYXIKIGNoZWNrX3Bhc3N3ZCggaW50IHVuaXQsIGNoYXIgKmF1c2VyLCBpbnQgdXNlcmxl biwgY2hhciAqYXBhc3N3ZCwgaW50IHBhc3N3ZGxlbiwgY2hhciAqKm1zZywgaW50ICptc2dsZW4p CiB7CiAjaWYgMSAvKiBYWFggQXNzdW1lIGFsbCBlbnRyaWVzIE9LLiAqLwogICBMV0lQX1VOVVNF RF9BUkcodW5pdCk7CiAgIExXSVBfVU5VU0VEX0FSRyhhdXNlcik7CiAgIExXSVBfVU5VU0VEX0FS Ryh1c2VybGVuKTsKICAgTFdJUF9VTlVTRURfQVJHKGFwYXNzd2QpOwogICBMV0lQX1VOVVNFRF9B UkcocGFzc3dkbGVuKTsKLSAgTFdJUF9VTlVTRURfQVJHKG1zZ2xlbik7CisgICptc2dsZW4gPSAw OwogICAqbXNnID0gKGNoYXIgKikgMDsKICAgcmV0dXJuIFVQQVBfQVVUSEFDSzsgICAgIC8qIFhY WCBBc3N1bWUgYWxsIGVudHJpZXMgT0suICovCiAjZWxzZQogICB1X2NoYXIgcmV0ID0gMDsKICAg c3RydWN0IHdvcmRsaXN0ICphZGRycyA9IE5VTEw7CiAgIGNoYXIgcGFzc3dkWzI1Nl0sIHVzZXJb MjU2XTsKICAgY2hhciBzZWNyZXRbTUFYV09SRExFTl07CiAgIHN0YXRpYyB1X3Nob3J0IGF0dGVt cHRzID0gMDsK --=_mixed 00518EBCC12577DD_=-- From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Nov 18 06:27:32 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PJ2eK-0000cU-EZ for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:27:32 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53445 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJ2eH-0000bT-9C for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:27:30 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJ2eF-0007JH-Sb for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:27:29 -0500 Received: from leb.cs.unibo.it ([130.136.1.102]:44457) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJ2eF-0007Ii-I2 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:27:27 -0500 Received: from localhost (maddalena.cs.unibo.it [130.136.5.6]) by leb.cs.unibo.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5BF355B5; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:27:24 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:27:24 +0100 From: Renzo Davoli To: lwip-devel@nongnu.org Message-ID: <20101118112724.GA23698@cs.unibo.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Subject: [lwip-devel] LWIP and LWIPv6 projects X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:27:30 -0000 Dear LWIP designers and developers, this is just a "call for brainstorming" message. The meaning of this message is to discuss if two projects (LWIP and LWIPv6) can cooperate, to which extent and which can be the common goals. Each one of the project has pros and cons, the focus is different but we have a lot of common ideas and code. A good meeting opportunity is the devroom named "new challenges in virtualization" at FOSDEM 2011 (Bruxelles, February 5-6 2011). I invite you to join the devroom and propose talks. The devroom wiki is here: http://nciv2011.v2.cs.unibo.it Maybe there can be a synergy to share ideas and code: both projects could benefit from a cooperation. At the end we could decide to merge some code, the entire projects, or to start a new joint development... or nothing at all. Any result starts with a proposal, no proposal implies no results. renzo -------------------------------- The VirtualSquare Lab is a container of research projects about virtuality. We have developed VDE, the virtual distributed ethernet, and we are working on the idea of partial virtual machine: a new kind of VM that does not boot an OS (they are not architecture/system machine) and support several processes (out of the definition of process/application VM). View-OS implementations (umview/kmview) are virtual machine where the user can virtualize just what he/she needs, e.g. a subtree of the file system, devices, networking... For networking virtualization we needed a tcpip stack as a library and then back in 2004 we started a fork of your project named LWIPv6. LWIPv6 has several new features including: - IPv6: the stack has one "engine" for IPv6 packets, it manages also IPv4 packets by creating a "pseudo-header" just for the packet management (v4 a.b.c.d addresses are converted into IPv4 mapped ::ffff:a.b.c.d) - definition of several addresses per interface (lwip_{add,del}_addr) - management of prefix-based packet routing (lwip_{add,del}_route) - IPv6 autoconfiguration - multi stack: the library is able to manage several stacks at the same time - VDE interfaces - (socket api) AF_PACKET for raw packets and AF_NETLINK for configuration - (socket api) lwip_{pselect, poll, ppoll} to manage event driven programs using both lwip connections and non-lwip device/sockets - a very clean interface: http://wiki.virtualsquare.org/index.php/LWIPv6_programming_guide there are also other features in our experimental version: - packet filtering - NAT (v4 and v6) - slirpV6 - radvd (autoconfiguration server) we are planning to add (some day): - management of OOB traffic - icmp notifications of errors as ancillary messages for UDP/TCP LWIP and LWIPv6 have two different domains of application: LWIP is (also? primarily?) for embedded systems, then the main focus is to be "light weight". Our focus is to the "enough" light to stay in a library, but we need a number of features that are useless on embedded systems. LWIPv6 was created because we needed a stack for our partial virtual machines, I understand that some feature are partially implemented and others could be implemented in a better way. On the other hand, it works, it is quite stable, it is distributed in Debian and Ubuntu afaik, maybe in other distros. People using Debian can create applications having an embedded IPv4/IPv6 stack (like our vdetelweb, the telnet and web configuration interface for our VDE switches). I think, and I have read in many mail threads, that your project LWIP need a more complete IPv6 support. On the other hand it is hard for us to port new features and bugfixes from LWIP to LWIPv6. A tcpip-stack-in-a-library has many uses. I think that a more complete implementation of LWIPv6 can become standard for partial virtual machines, for applications with embedded stacks and maybe for microkernels (or millikernels, another proposal of ours that I'll describe to you if you are interested). The two communites (I know your one is much larger than ours) could benefit from features/bug report of the other. e.g. it is uncommon to run a radv server on an embedded system, but if the code is just under a #if configuration constant, your user could have a stack which is a bit heavier but includes just the feature he/she needs. Happy hacking to all, and I am really looking forward to hearing your ideas. From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Nov 18 06:52:36 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PJ32a-0001wG-Cm for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:52:36 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49797 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJ32X-0001vO-Hg for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:52:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJ32W-0003Nw-B8 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:52:33 -0500 Received: from recoil.dh.bytemark.co.uk ([89.16.177.154]:23026 helo=dark.recoil.org) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJ32W-0003NC-0y for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:52:32 -0500 Received: (qmail 10809 invoked by uid 634); 18 Nov 2010 11:52:28 -0000 Received: from 16.186.34.193.bridgep.com (HELO [10.17.20.20]) (193.34.186.16) (smtp-auth username remote@recoil.org, mechanism cram-md5) by dark.recoil.org (qpsmtpd/0.83) with ESMTPA; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:52:27 +0000 Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] LWIP and LWIPv6 projects From: Kieran Mansley To: lwip-devel In-Reply-To: <20101118112724.GA23698@cs.unibo.it> References: <20101118112724.GA23698@cs.unibo.it> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:52:24 +0000 Message-Id: <1290081144.12106.7.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on dark.recoil.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: OpenBSD 3.0-3.9 X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:52:34 -0000 On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 12:27 +0100, Renzo Davoli wrote: > Dear LWIP designers and developers, > > this is just a "call for brainstorming" message. > The meaning of this message is to discuss if two projects (LWIP and LWIPv6) > can cooperate, to which extent and which can be the common goals. > Each one of the project has pros and cons, the focus is different but we have > a lot of common ideas and code. This was discussed recently. My view is that the two projects have differing goals, with lwIP primarily concerned with being lightweight and low memory, while lwIPv6 is more about new features. So while they have a lot in common I think this makes them pretty fundamentally incompatible for merger. Kieran From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Nov 18 14:26:51 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PJA8B-0004Xy-AW for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:26:51 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38968 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJA88-0004Xf-5k for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:26:50 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJA87-0007iR-8e for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:26:48 -0500 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]:48593 helo=mail.gmx.net) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJA86-0007i6-O6 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:26:47 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2010 19:26:44 -0000 Received: from dslb-094-218-181-009.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO [192.168.1.20]) [94.218.181.9] by mail.gmx.net (mp011) with SMTP; 18 Nov 2010 20:26:44 +0100 X-Authenticated: #286948 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/ppfAMY2XpDfEVwvMxZHJj9ZRuc3yDTXx8DjfxsA 6tn8kBXtIyts0y Message-ID: <4CE57DF3.2090402@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:26:43 +0100 From: "goldsimon@gmx.de" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lwip-devel Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] LWIP and LWIPv6 projects References: <20101118112724.GA23698@cs.unibo.it> <1290081144.12106.7.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> In-Reply-To: <1290081144.12106.7.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:26:50 -0000 I haven't had a look at the LWIPv6 sources yet, but given Ivan's current efforts on lwIP + IPv6, it might be worth checking if we could share lwIP's core code, wouldn't it? Given the documentation, the main difference should be additional protocols and API functions. If it's like that, it might make sense to cooperate on part of the code... Simon Kieran Mansley wrote: > On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 12:27 +0100, Renzo Davoli wrote: >> Dear LWIP designers and developers, >> >> this is just a "call for brainstorming" message. >> The meaning of this message is to discuss if two projects (LWIP and LWIPv6) >> can cooperate, to which extent and which can be the common goals. >> Each one of the project has pros and cons, the focus is different but we have >> a lot of common ideas and code. > This was discussed recently. My view is that the two projects have > differing goals, with lwIP primarily concerned with being lightweight > and low memory, while lwIPv6 is more about new features. So while they > have a lot in common I think this makes them pretty fundamentally > incompatible for merger. > > Kieran > > > _______________________________________________ > lwip-devel mailing list > lwip-devel@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-devel > From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Nov 18 15:10:27 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PJAoN-00032W-RJ for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:10:27 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44046 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJAny-0002zc-W3 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:10:27 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJAnM-0007ml-Ht for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:10:02 -0500 Received: from recoil.dh.bytemark.co.uk ([89.16.177.154]:36416 helo=dark.recoil.org) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJAnM-0007la-8G for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:09:24 -0500 Received: (qmail 25037 invoked by uid 634); 18 Nov 2010 20:09:22 -0000 Received: from cpc2-cmbg6-0-0-cust777.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com (HELO [192.168.2.23]) (81.107.35.10) (smtp-auth username remote@recoil.org, mechanism cram-md5) by dark.recoil.org (qpsmtpd/0.83) with ESMTPA; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:09:22 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] LWIP and LWIPv6 projects From: Kieran Mansley In-Reply-To: <4CE57DF3.2090402@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:09:20 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <840A28E4-FBDE-4277-82C5-ED8720189863@recoil.org> References: <20101118112724.GA23698@cs.unibo.it> <1290081144.12106.7.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> <4CE57DF3.2090402@gmx.de> To: lwip-devel X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on dark.recoil.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: OpenBSD 3.0-3.9 X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:10:27 -0000 On 18 Nov 2010, at 19:26, goldsimon@gmx.de wrote: > I haven't had a look at the LWIPv6 sources yet, but given Ivan's = current efforts on lwIP + IPv6, it might be worth checking if we could = share lwIP's core code, wouldn't it? That's effectively how it is now, with LWIPv6 using lwIP at its core, = with a set of changes to add support for IPV6, and then further = applications and higher layer protocols added. > Given the documentation, the main difference should be additional = protocols and API functions. If it's like that, it might make sense to = cooperate on part of the code... I think we're mostly agreeing: I'm happy for LWIPv6 to use lwIP, and the = work to add IPv6 support to lwIP will I hope make that easier. However = the approach that Ivan's taking will be, I think, different in the way = that IPv6 support is implemented because of the goal of remaining = lightweight (e.g. the way that IPv4 addresses are handled); we couldn't = just pull LWIPv6's implementation into lwIP instead. If there are API changes that LWIPv6 needs from lwIP then again that = should be OK in the same way that we try and improve lwIP's APIs with = suggestions from all the other users. Kieran= From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Nov 18 16:21:25 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PJBv3-00016t-3S for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:21:25 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53141 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJBv0-00016n-IG for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:21:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJBuz-0008Fj-EA for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:21:22 -0500 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]:51265 helo=mail.gmx.net) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJBuz-0008FK-1q for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:21:21 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2010 21:21:19 -0000 Received: from dslb-094-218-181-009.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO [192.168.1.42]) [94.218.181.9] by mail.gmx.net (mp055) with SMTP; 18 Nov 2010 22:21:19 +0100 X-Authenticated: #286948 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+kyrMWOjakvn+YMDO1jp4qtWzw+BDIufw7aYkiYi CPAmzKqdepU+Xv Message-Id: From: Simon Goldschmidt To: lwip-devel In-Reply-To: <840A28E4-FBDE-4277-82C5-ED8720189863@recoil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: iPad Mail (7B500) Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 7B500) Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] LWIP and LWIPv6 projects Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:22:28 +0100 References: <20101118112724.GA23698@cs.unibo.it> <1290081144.12106.7.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> <4CE57DF3.2090402@gmx.de> <840A28E4-FBDE-4277-82C5-ED8720189863@recoil.org> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:21:23 -0000 Kieran Mansley : wrote: > On 18 Nov 2010, at 19:26, goldsimon@gmx.de wrote: >> I haven't had a look at the LWIPv6 sources yet, but given Ivan's = current efforts on lwIP + IPv6, it might be worth checking if we could = share lwIP's core code, wouldn't it? >=20 > That's effectively how it is now, with LWIPv6 using lwIP at its core, = with a set of changes to add support for IPV6, and then further = applications and higher layer protocols added. I haven't found a downloadable source distribution under the first = google results, but from what I saw, the multi-stack support rather = changes a lot in the sources copied from lwIP. My intention would have = been to let LWIPv6 use lwIP without any changes (once we have decent = IPv6 support), but given the multi-stack changes, I don't that's as easy = as I imagined. Simon >=20 From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Nov 18 16:58:33 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PJCUy-0001W9-Tc for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:58:32 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54602 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJCUx-0001G0-4K for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:58:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJCUY-0006KG-Up for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:58:08 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:35368 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJCUY-0006K9-SF for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:58:06 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PJCUX-0008H5-FZ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:58:05 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PJCUX-0002bb-8q; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:58:05 +0000 To: David Empson , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: David Empson X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31701 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 203.97.48.67 (Savane authenticated user dempson) Message-Id: <20101119-105804.sv56620.93688@savannah.nongnu.org> References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:58:05 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31701] Error return value from dns_gethostbyname() doesn't match documentation X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:58:31 -0000 URL: Summary: Error return value from dns_gethostbyname() doesn't match documentation Project: lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack Submitted by: dempson Submitted on: Fri Nov 19 10:58:04 2010 Category: None Severity: 3 - Normal Item Group: Faulty Behaviour Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: lwIP version: CVS Head _______________________________________________________ Details: The comments for netconn_gethostbyname() indicate that a return value of ERR_ARG is used for "dns client not initialized or invalid hostname". The actual implementation in dns.c function dns_gethostbyname() is returning ERR_VAL if dns_init() was not called, or either the hostname or IP address pointer arguments are invalid. I think dns_gethostbyname() should be corrected to return ERR_ARG instead of ERR_VAL for these errors. It may also be worth listing the ERR_ARG return value in the comment block preceding dns_gethostbyname(). netconn_gethostbyname() can also return ERR_VAL for an timeout or other error from the DNS server, so at present this return value is ambiguous. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Nov 18 17:00:04 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PJCWS-0002M1-8S for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:00:04 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57019 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJCWI-0001qO-91 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:00:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJCL9-0004Ff-HJ for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:48:24 -0500 Received: from dukecmfep04.coxmail.com ([68.99.120.39]:64289) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJCL9-0004EV-Cs for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:48:23 -0500 Received: from dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com ([68.99.120.137]) by dukecmfep04.coxmail.com (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20101118214801.JKJB5593.dukecmfep04.coxmail.com@dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com> for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:48:01 -0500 Received: from FW2 ([172.18.18.217]) by dukecmimpo03.coxmail.com with bizsmtp id Ylo11f00A4h0NJL01lo1Al; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:48:01 -0500 From: "Bill Auerbach" To: "'lwip-devel'" References: <20101118112724.GA23698@cs.unibo.it> <1290081144.12106.7.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> <4CE57DF3.2090402@gmx.de> <840A28E4-FBDE-4277-82C5-ED8720189863@recoil.org> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [lwip-devel] LWIP and LWIPv6 projects Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:48:01 -0500 Message-ID: <001801cb876a$45ae6010$d10b2030$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcuHZpn7bkc+PvhsSjOunQfueuFyYQAAmflw Content-Language: en-us X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:00:02 -0000 I didn't find source either but from what I was able to read, it sounds like IPv6 is the default for all of their code and IPv4 works within it. Which means there is no IPv4 only version of their effort. That makes it incompatible with the current Savannah code if we want IPv4 in the same footprint as now but to throw an IPv6 #define and add the code and data additions to support IPv6. It may well be more effort to merge than to add IPv6 to the current code base. (merge_time - IPv6_time_saved > current_release + IPv6_time). :-) Bill >I haven't found a downloadable source distribution under the first >google results, but from what I saw, the multi-stack support rather >changes a lot in the sources copied from lwIP. My intention would have >been to let LWIPv6 use lwIP without any changes (once we have decent >IPv6 support), but given the multi-stack changes, I don't that's as easy >as I imagined. > >Simon From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Nov 19 04:22:36 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PJNAx-00023w-P6 for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 04:22:35 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35074 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJNAp-0001zd-DB for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 04:22:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJNAg-0006bQ-25 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 04:22:27 -0500 Received: from recoil.dh.bytemark.co.uk ([89.16.177.154]:14608 helo=dark.recoil.org) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJNAf-0006b6-PV for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 04:22:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 16382 invoked by uid 634); 19 Nov 2010 09:22:16 -0000 Received: from 16.186.34.193.bridgep.com (HELO [10.17.20.20]) (193.34.186.16) (smtp-auth username remote@recoil.org, mechanism cram-md5) by dark.recoil.org (qpsmtpd/0.83) with ESMTPA; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:22:16 +0000 Subject: RE: [lwip-devel] LWIP and LWIPv6 projects From: Kieran Mansley To: lwip-devel In-Reply-To: <001801cb876a$45ae6010$d10b2030$@com> References: <20101118112724.GA23698@cs.unibo.it> <1290081144.12106.7.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> <4CE57DF3.2090402@gmx.de> <840A28E4-FBDE-4277-82C5-ED8720189863@recoil.org> <001801cb876a$45ae6010$d10b2030$@com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:22:13 +0000 Message-Id: <1290158533.2353.1.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on dark.recoil.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: OpenBSD 3.0-3.9 X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:22:34 -0000 On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 16:48 -0500, Bill Auerbach wrote: > > It may well be more effort to merge than to add IPv6 to the current > code > base. (merge_time - IPv6_time_saved > current_release + > IPv6_time). :-) I agree, and I think the result of a merge is likely to be not as good (for lwIP) as implementing IPv6 for lwIP from scratch (as Ivan's doing). Kieran From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Nov 19 15:51:42 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PJXvp-0000NJ-Qb for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:51:41 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36285 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJXvm-0000LN-DC for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:51:39 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJXvk-0007j0-EI for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:51:38 -0500 Received: from [64.141.41.117] (port=41959 helo=mail.inicotech.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJXvk-0007iL-6G for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:51:36 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.inicotech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F2B530078 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:51:30 -0700 (MST) Received: from mail.inicotech.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail-server.cg.shawcable.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ctziXqLWlPtJ for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:51:28 -0700 (MST) Received: from webmail.inicotech.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.inicotech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96126530072 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:51:28 -0700 (MST) Received: from 64.141.41.117 (SquirrelMail authenticated user delamer) by webmail.inicotech.com with HTTP; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:51:28 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <55841.64.141.41.117.1290199888.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> In-Reply-To: <20101119170631.5B1BB530072@mail.inicotech.com> References: <20101119170631.5B1BB530072@mail.inicotech.com> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:51:28 -0700 (MST) From: "Ivan Delamer" To: lwip-devel@nongnu.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) Subject: [lwip-devel] Re: LWIP and LWIPv6 projects X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ivan Delamer , lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:51:39 -0000 Hi All, Thank you for the vote of confidence on the work I'm doing on IPv6. I do agree with your assessment of LWIPv6. It seems to be a native IPv6 version of LwIP, with IPv4-mapped addresses for "legacy" support of IPv4. I think it is a clever approach for a dual v4/v6 stack. However, it loose= s the possibility to have a v4-only implementation with smaller footprint. So far I have been able to keep everything IPv6 related #if'd out, so the footprint won't change for a v4-only setup. I've also managed to leave th= e API practically untouched, which I think is desirable for everyone. The implementation in general follows the same approach as for IPv4 parts (e.g. Neighbor Discovery tables are similar to ARP, Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) is similar to IGMP, etc.) I still need to test things a bit more, but I hope that I can report on some v4 and v4/v6 footprint comparisons by the end of next week. Cheers Ivan > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:22:13 +0000 > From: Kieran Mansley > Subject: RE: [lwip-devel] LWIP and LWIPv6 projects > To: lwip-devel > Message-ID: <1290158533.2353.1.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> > Content-Type: text/plain > > On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 16:48 -0500, Bill Auerbach wrote: >> >> It may well be more effort to merge than to add IPv6 to the current >> code >> base. (merge_time - IPv6_time_saved > current_release + >> IPv6_time). :-) > > I agree, and I think the result of a merge is likely to be not as good > (for lwIP) as implementing IPv6 for lwIP from scratch (as Ivan's doing)= . > > Kieran > > From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Nov 20 11:21:19 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PJqBj-0000dW-75 for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:21:19 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46740 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJqBh-0000dQ-6B for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:21:18 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJqBg-00081M-A9 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:21:17 -0500 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:46459 helo=mail.gmx.net) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJqBf-000811-Ss for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:21:16 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2010 16:21:12 -0000 Received: from dslb-088-067-118-236.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO [192.168.1.20]) [88.67.118.236] by mail.gmx.net (mp016) with SMTP; 20 Nov 2010 17:21:12 +0100 X-Authenticated: #286948 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/gZuplt9XgOoIC2hzGVVZA4ORb1C4JCLBL66Ovbe ZyknN8x0cbTKE6 Message-ID: <4CE7F577.8070702@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:21:11 +0100 From: "goldsimon@gmx.de" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lwip-devel Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] LWIP and LWIPv6 projects References: <20101118112724.GA23698@cs.unibo.it> <1290081144.12106.7.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> <4CE57DF3.2090402@gmx.de> <840A28E4-FBDE-4277-82C5-ED8720189863@recoil.org> <001801cb876a$45ae6010$d10b2030$@com> <1290158533.2353.1.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> In-Reply-To: <1290158533.2353.1.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:21:18 -0000 Kieran Mansley wrote: > On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 16:48 -0500, Bill Auerbach wrote: >> It may well be more effort to merge than to add IPv6 to the current >> code >> base. (merge_time - IPv6_time_saved> current_release + >> IPv6_time). :-) > I agree, and I think the result of a merge is likely to be not as good > (for lwIP) as implementing IPv6 for lwIP from scratch (as Ivan's doing). That's probably true, as well as the problem that IPv6/mixed seems to be the main target. Anyway I didn't really mean to copy the IPv6 implementation from LWIPv6. Instead, I would very much favour LWIPv6 to use our source code without changes (as a pure library - at least the core functions maybe) to make sure any bugs found there are fixed for us, too (and the other way round, too, of course). The main work for this would be on the LWIPv6 side, but we might have to change some things, too. It might even not work at all if it pushes the code away from targeting embedded systems. As a starter for IPv6 on lwIP, I do favour the from-scratch-method (and I appreciate Ivan's efforts in that!). Simon From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Nov 20 11:41:01 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PJqUn-0005OA-FK for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:41:01 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44334 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJqUl-0005N1-5Y for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:40:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJqUj-0004Go-UR for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:40:58 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:58064 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJqUj-0004Gk-Sy for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:40:57 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PJqUg-0001RG-IN; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:40:54 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PJqUc-0007MB-Td; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:40:52 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , David Empson , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31701 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 88.67.118.236 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101120-164050.sv42414.72781@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101119-105804.sv56620.93688@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101119-105804.sv56620.93688@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:40:50 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31701] Error return value from dns_gethostbyname() doesn't match documentation X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:40:59 -0000 Update of bug #31701 (project lwip): Status: None => Fixed Assigned to: None => goldsimon Open/Closed: Open => Closed _______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #1: Fixed by correcting return value in dns_gethostbyname(). Thanks for reporting. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Nov 20 11:52:11 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PJqfb-0007ck-5l for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:52:11 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52187 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJqfY-0007cT-VJ for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:52:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJqfX-0006tN-0a for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:52:08 -0500 Received: from leb.cs.unibo.it ([130.136.1.102]:53105) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJqfW-0006sT-R9 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:52:06 -0500 Received: from localhost (maddalena.cs.unibo.it [130.136.5.6]) by leb.cs.unibo.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B29355B3; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:52:03 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:52:03 +0100 From: Renzo Davoli To: lwip-devel Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] LWIP and LWIPv6 projects Message-ID: <20101120165203.GC31330@cs.unibo.it> References: <20101118112724.GA23698@cs.unibo.it> <1290081144.12106.7.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> <4CE57DF3.2090402@gmx.de> <840A28E4-FBDE-4277-82C5-ED8720189863@recoil.org> <001801cb876a$45ae6010$d10b2030$@com> <1290158533.2353.1.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> <4CE7F577.8070702@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CE7F577.8070702@gmx.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:52:10 -0000 On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 05:21:11PM +0100, goldsimon@gmx.de wrote: > Anyway I didn't really mean to copy the IPv6 implementation from LWIPv6. > Instead, I would very much favour LWIPv6 to use our source code without > changes (as a pure library - at least the core functions maybe) to make > sure any bugs found there are fixed for us, too (and the other way > round, too, of course). The main work for this would be on the LWIPv6 > side, but we might have to change some things, too. It might even not > work at all if it pushes the code away from targeting embedded systems. I understand that we are addressing similar problems for a different set of applications. I agree with Simon: if we are able to restructure the code using macro/ functions such that parts can be shared, we can benefit from a wider user community and a larger group of developers. Along the path we will see how much code we can share. How many lwip active developers live in Europe? FOSDEM is a huge conference for developers, if you join FOSDEM we can meet there and if you want we can arrange a brainstorming session on LWIP-LWIPv6 in the NCIV dev-room. renzo From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Nov 21 06:49:04 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PK8Po-0005H8-Oo for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 06:49:04 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38666 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PK8Pm-0005Ea-0B for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 06:49:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK8Pk-0006cl-MT for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 06:49:01 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:49286 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK8Pk-0006ch-Jl for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 06:49:00 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PK8Ph-0005z4-RJ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:48:57 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PK8Ph-00025W-Pt; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:48:57 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Falk Hatzfeld , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31303 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 188.98.176.106 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101121-114857.sv42414.54867@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101011-150856.sv80413.94230@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101011-150856.sv80413.94230@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:48:57 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31303] DHCP: when changing static up netif to dhcp link_callback is ignored X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:49:02 -0000 Update of bug #31303 (project lwip): Status: None => Invalid Assigned to: None => goldsimon _______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #1: I think you mixed up the up/down-callback with the link-callback: the up/down-callback notifies the application of the IP status (i.e. valid IP address assigned or not), while the link-callback is mainly used internally to the stack and notifies about changes to the hardware link (i.e. cable pulled/plugged). As such, triggering the link-callback from dhcp_bind() (when an IP address is assigned) is not intended behaviour. The link-callback is only triggered when your netif driver detects a link change and calls netif_set_link_up/down(). This has to be implemented in your driver. If it's not, the link status is always detected as up. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Nov 21 07:40:01 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PK9D7-0004a7-HH for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 07:40:01 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46367 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PK9D6-0004Za-3w for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 07:40:00 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9D5-0007Zj-9C for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 07:40:00 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:58660 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9D5-0007Zf-6b for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 07:39:59 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9D5-0006YW-2H; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:39:59 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9D4-0002cf-OD; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:39:58 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31720 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 188.98.176.106 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101121-123958.sv42414.44400@savannah.nongnu.org> References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:39:58 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31720] ARP-queueing: RFC 1122 recommends to queue at least 1 packet X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:40:00 -0000 URL: Summary: ARP-queueing: RFC 1122 recommends to queue at least 1 packet Project: lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack Submitted by: goldsimon Submitted on: So 21 Nov 2010 12:39:58 GMT Category: ARP Severity: 3 - Normal Item Group: Faulty Behaviour Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: lwIP version: CVS Head _______________________________________________________ Details: See RFC 1122 chapter 2.3.2.2 ARP Packet Queue: "The link layer SHOULD save (rather than discard) at least one (the latest) packet of each set of packets destined to the same unresolved IP address, and transmit the saved packet when the address has been resolved." It might even be a good idea to drop our multiple-packet-queue and have a single-packet-queue instead, which would be enabled by default. The problem of lost packets also came up multiple times on lwip-users already. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Nov 21 08:26:57 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PK9wX-0001n4-R7 for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:26:57 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42932 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PK9wW-0001l8-0A for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:26:56 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9wU-0008LG-Ty for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:26:55 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:52311 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9wU-0008L6-RL for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:26:54 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9wT-00076o-Nf; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:26:53 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9wT-00036U-Kj; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:26:53 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31722 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 188.98.176.106 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101121-132652.sv42414.63662@savannah.nongnu.org> References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:26:53 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31722] IP packets sent with an AutoIP source addr must be sent link-local X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:26:57 -0000 URL: Summary: IP packets sent with an AutoIP source addr must be sent link-local Project: lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack Submitted by: goldsimon Submitted on: So 21 Nov 2010 13:26:52 GMT Category: ARP Severity: 3 - Normal Item Group: Faulty Behaviour Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: lwIP version: CVS Head _______________________________________________________ Details: i.e. such packets must not be sent to a netif's gateway but use ARP and direct local communication instead. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Nov 21 08:27:32 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PK9x5-0001yl-Tr for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:27:31 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43055 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PK9x3-0001yg-WB for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:27:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9x2-0008Ox-Q1 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:27:29 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:52314 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9x2-0008Os-NL for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:27:28 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9x1-00076s-7K; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:27:27 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9x1-00036g-3b; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:27:27 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Bill Auerbach , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31367 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 188.98.176.106 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101121-132726.sv42414.3869@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101018-152734.sv64179.81657@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101018-200658.sv42414.68797@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101018-165439.sv64179.40101@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101018-175326.sv64179.51533@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101019-071152.sv42414.45488@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101019-082324.sv64179.54825@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101019-083551.sv64179.13983@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101019-150305.sv64179.7074@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101019-150305.sv64179.7074@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:27:27 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31367] Cannot send a UDP datagram to a different valid subnet X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:27:31 -0000 Follow-up Comment #8, bug #31367 (project lwip): Pardon me for the confusion, but when trying to find an RFC that tells me how/when to update the ARP information on incoming IP packets, I found none. And this got me to the point again: updating the ARP table from non-ARP packets is not standardized since it is not recommended (unclear when routers are involved, high overhead for every incoming packet). I would even drop the whole code for that, but since we already have it... As to RFC 1122, it does not forbid adding the source of your broadcast to the ARP cache, but it *is* quite clear about outbound routing. See chapter 3.3.1.1 Local/Remote Decision: "(b) If the IP destination address bits extracted by the address mask match the IP source address bits extracted by the same mask, then the destination is on the corresponding connected network, and the datagram is to be transmitted directly to the destination host. (c) If not, then the destination is accessible only through a gateway." To me, it's quite clear that in this case, an ARP entry for the address in question would not help, as the packet would have to be sent to a gateway according to the RFC. However, in your special case, there's really a bug in lwIP: according to RFC 3927, there's a bug in our AutoIP implementation (I've filed a bug for that: bug #31722). See 2.6.2. Forwarding Rules: "If for any reason the host chooses to send the packet with an IPv4 Link-Local source address (e.g., no routable address is available on the selected interface), then it MUST ARP for the destination address and then send its packet, with an IPv4 Link-Local source address and a routable destination IPv4 address, directly to its destination on the same physical link. The host MUST NOT send the packet to any router for forwarding." While this helps you for mixed communication of AutoIP/non-AutoIP devices, it does not help in the case where an application uses global broadcasts to find devices that are configured with an invalid IP address (like I did). The only solution here that does not violate the routing RFCs is to reply with a global broadcast, too. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Nov 21 08:28:50 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PK9yM-000297-0f for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:28:50 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43316 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PK9yK-00028w-Aw for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:28:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9yJ-0008Ub-CC for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:28:48 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:52317 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9yJ-0008UX-9R for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:28:47 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9yH-00076x-TY; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:28:45 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9yH-00037p-OC; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:28:45 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Bill Auerbach , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31367 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 188.98.176.106 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101121-132845.sv42414.51073@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101018-152734.sv64179.81657@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101018-200658.sv42414.68797@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101018-165439.sv64179.40101@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101018-175326.sv64179.51533@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101019-071152.sv42414.45488@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101019-082324.sv64179.54825@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101019-083551.sv64179.13983@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101019-150305.sv64179.7074@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101121-132726.sv42414.3869@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101121-132726.sv42414.3869@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:28:45 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31367] Cannot send a UDP datagram to a different valid subnet X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:28:49 -0000 Update of bug #31367 (project lwip): Status: Need Info => Invalid Assigned to: None => goldsimon Open/Closed: Open => Closed _______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #9: I'll close this as invalid. Please reopen if you think this is still wrong. In that case, I'd be specifically interested if this works on other OSes/stacks (with 2 non-AutoIP subnets, of course). _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Nov 21 08:29:07 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PK9yd-0002Fw-3p for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:29:07 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=32907 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PK9ya-0002FA-Sn for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:29:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9yZ-0008VW-II for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:29:04 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:56691 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9yZ-0008VS-FZ for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:29:03 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9yU-000772-Qe; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:28:58 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PK9yU-00037u-Pv; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:28:58 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Falk Hatzfeld , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31303 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 188.98.176.106 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101121-132858.sv42414.74346@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101011-150856.sv80413.94230@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101121-114857.sv42414.54867@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101121-114857.sv42414.54867@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:28:58 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31303] DHCP: when changing static up netif to dhcp link_callback is ignored X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:29:05 -0000 Update of bug #31303 (project lwip): Open/Closed: Open => Closed _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Nov 21 08:41:38 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PKAAk-0004DD-Iw for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:41:38 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60198 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKAAh-0004Cc-LT for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:41:36 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKAAg-00028w-I0 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:41:35 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:35251 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKAAg-00028q-Ca for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:41:34 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKAAe-0007I5-3J; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:41:32 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKAAe-0003GM-1u; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:41:32 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Kieran Mansley , hanhui , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31525 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 188.98.176.106 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101121-134131.sv42414.83704@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101102-143604.sv73877.5065@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101102-151633.sv11869.57569@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101102-153814.sv73877.38687@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101102-154234.sv42414.1536@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101102-154234.sv42414.1536@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:41:32 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31525] dhcp_stop() should be free the dhcp memory, which in netif. X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:41:36 -0000 Update of bug #31525 (project lwip): Status: None => Fixed Assigned to: None => goldsimon Open/Closed: Open => Closed _______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #4: Fixed by adding the function dhcp_cleanup(), which you would need to call before free(netif). Thanks for reporting. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Nov 21 09:27:21 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PKAsy-0002m8-Tp for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:27:20 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43700 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKAsw-0002m2-LI for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:27:19 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKAsu-0002fB-OE for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:27:18 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:44183 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKAsu-0002eM-Lb for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:27:16 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKAst-0007oI-0o; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:27:15 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKAst-0003jz-04; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:27:15 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Ben , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31469 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 188.98.176.106 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101121-142714.sv42414.92778@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101026-155912.sv80612.10518@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101026-155912.sv80612.10518@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:27:15 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31469] Repetitive lwip_send() calls causes bad behaviour X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:27:19 -0000 Update of bug #31469 (project lwip): Severity: 3 - Normal => 2 - Minor Status: None => Need Info _______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #1: Unfortunately, this is way too little information to help you. Of course, the first thing I'd suggest you to do is upgrade to lwIP 1.4.0 RC1 (or 1.3.2 if you don't want to use the release candidate). Then, for 1.3.0, I'd suggest to turn off LWIP_TCPIP_CORE_LOCKING (set it to 0), since this is really, really EXPERIMENTAL code, especially in 1.3.0! And finally, you might need to debug this yourself a bit more, since it works for me (although I'm using the latest CVS code, so it might be a bug fixed in between) - it might well be a bug in your port, or be related to specific timings, which I cannot reproduce here. I've marked it as 'minor' as it is related to experimental code, only. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Nov 21 09:38:56 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PKB4C-0004dP-FF for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:38:56 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48297 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKB4A-0004cf-IH for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:38:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKB49-0004Qz-DB for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:38:54 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:57501 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKB49-0004Qv-7e for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:38:53 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKB49-0007vd-6J; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:38:53 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKB49-0003qd-58; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:38:53 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31723 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 188.98.176.106 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101121-143852.sv42414.83518@savannah.nongnu.org> References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:38:53 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31723] tcp_kill_prio() kills pcbs with the same prio X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:38:55 -0000 URL: Summary: tcp_kill_prio() kills pcbs with the same prio Project: lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack Submitted by: goldsimon Submitted on: So 21 Nov 2010 14:38:52 GMT Category: None Severity: 2 - Minor Item Group: None Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: lwIP version: CVS Head _______________________________________________________ Details: According to its documentation, tcp_kill_prio() kills "the oldest active connection that has lower priority than prio". However, the current code also kills connections with a priority equal to 'prio'. We should either change the documentation or the implementation. The downside of the current implementation is that every call to tcp_new() can lead to aborting an old (active) connection. This has been in there since revision 1.1 of tcp.c, so changing it might involve changing applications relying on this (like I have one :). _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Nov 21 10:29:42 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PKBrK-00034v-Oy for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:29:42 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60367 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKBrH-00033I-O0 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:29:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKBrF-00064l-K9 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:29:39 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:56095 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKBrF-00064h-He for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:29:37 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKBrE-0008Uu-3C; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:29:36 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKBrD-0004Pf-SB; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:29:35 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Martin Velek , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31084 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 188.98.176.106 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101121-152935.sv42414.29724@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20100920-135622.sv75041.2131@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20100920-135622.sv75041.2131@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:29:35 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31084] socket API returns always EMSGSIZE on non-blocking sockets if data size > send buffers X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:29:40 -0000 Follow-up Comment #1, bug #31084 (project lwip): Yep, seems like sending as much as possible is the way to go. It's not as if we did this deliberately, I guess: it's only not been implemented, yet. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Nov 22 10:53:16 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PKYhg-0008KK-ML for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:53:16 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47144 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKYhW-0006oI-GN for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:53:15 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKYZY-0001sr-JI for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:46:11 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:59359 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKYZY-0001sh-Hx for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:44:52 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKYZU-0008JO-5l; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:44:48 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKYZT-0003KE-9P; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:44:48 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Dave Wilson , dave.wilson@ti.com, lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Dave Wilson X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31177 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 192.94.94.106 (Savane authenticated user dawilson) Message-Id: <20101122-154446.sv62773.89658@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20100930-204910.sv62773.89994@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101001-123345.sv62773.4170@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101120-191739.sv42414.32525@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101120-191739.sv42414.32525@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:44:47 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31177] lwIP 1.3.2 tcp_slowtmr() can corrupt tcp_active_pcbs in some cases. X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:53:15 -0000 Follow-up Comment #3, bug #31177 (project lwip): Thanks, Simon - it makes a difference when you really know the guts of the stack! I had not considered this possibility at all. I'll leave this fix in my copy for now since it definitely works better than the previous version for us. I will, however, go back in and rework based on your feedback when I have a chance. By the way, is there any recommendation regarding what calls are safe from within the application callback function? Changing this particular application so that it doesn't make various calls would likely be a major effort. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Nov 22 12:34:39 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PKaHn-00015B-Nl for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:34:39 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=56762 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKaGz-0008Hq-Ic for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:34:37 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKaFZ-0004M1-NW for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:33:49 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:59396 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKaFZ-0004Lx-M0 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:32:21 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKaFX-00019i-9a; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:32:19 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKaFX-0004hr-6G; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:32:19 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Bill Auerbach , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: patch X-Savane-Item-ID: 7329 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 188.98.180.32 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101122-173219.sv42414.16339@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20100927-101247.sv64179.10638@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20100927-101247.sv64179.10638@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:32:19 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [patch #7329] tcp_timer_needed prototype X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:34:37 -0000 Update of patch #7329 (project lwip): Status: None => Done Assigned to: None => goldsimon Open/Closed: Open => Closed _______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #1: Fixed, thanks for reporting. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Nov 22 12:36:30 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PKaJZ-0002Gk-OY for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:36:29 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59510 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKaJX-0002FO-U9 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:36:28 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKaJW-0005ha-V0 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:36:27 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:41360 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKaJW-0005hW-TI for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:36:26 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKaJU-0001D4-Rb; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:36:24 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKaJU-0004kj-Nb; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:36:24 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Bill Auerbach , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: patch X-Savane-Item-ID: 7328 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 188.98.180.32 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101122-173624.sv42414.67440@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20100927-091325.sv64179.95555@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20100927-091325.sv64179.95555@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:36:24 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [patch #7328] Autoip: ETHADDR16_COPY can be used X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:36:28 -0000 Update of patch #7328 (project lwip): Status: None => Done Assigned to: None => goldsimon Open/Closed: Open => Closed _______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #1: Why not? Fixed, thanks for reporting. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 23 13:32:00 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PKxeq-0005qW-5z for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:32:00 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47779 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKxek-0005qP-Tw for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:31:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKxed-0007qK-64 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:31:54 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:41507 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKxed-0007qB-4X for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:31:47 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKxea-0001kj-0f; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:31:44 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKxeZ-0006FN-Ux; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:31:43 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Bill Auerbach , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Bill Auerbach X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31720 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0E) X-Apparently-From: 98.174.85.143 (Savane authenticated user billauerbach) Message-Id: <20101123-133143.sv64179.7412@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101121-123958.sv42414.44400@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101121-123958.sv42414.44400@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:31:43 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31720] ARP-queueing: RFC 1122 recommends to queue at least 1 packet X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:31:59 -0000 Follow-up Comment #1, bug #31720 (project lwip): I've read parts of RFC 1122 and i agree with your suggestion. Queuing 1 packet would save some code too. RFC 1122 also has a MUST specified for preventing ARP flooding by using a timer to limit the frequency of ARP replies sent for incoming ARP requests. To me this sounds worth implementing to be more RFC1122 compliant as well as preventing ARP DoS problems. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 23 14:04:54 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PKyAf-0001WL-Hy for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:04:53 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38705 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKyAU-0000MK-4U for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:04:51 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKyAJ-0003Nt-Ts for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:04:41 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:52960 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKyAJ-0003Nk-Pp for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:04:31 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKyAG-00027e-NT; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:04:28 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKyAG-0006dl-MQ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:04:28 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Kieran Mansley , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 30577 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 94.218.178.120 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101123-190428.sv42414.37200@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20100728-165455.sv42414.22978@savannah.nongnu.org> <20100730-204009.sv11869.8062@savannah.nongnu.org> <20100731-060355.sv42414.39381@savannah.nongnu.org> <20100731-061007.sv42414.56715@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101120-180225.sv42414.47501@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101120-180225.sv42414.47501@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:04:28 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #30577] tcp_input: don't discard ACK-only packet after refusing 'refused_data' again X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:04:52 -0000 Update of bug #30577 (project lwip): Status: None => Fixed Assigned to: None => goldsimon Open/Closed: Open => Closed Planned Release: 1.4.1 => 1.4.0 _______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #4: I just found the time to test this fix. Like expected, the fix keeps unidirectional transmissions running when lwIP rejects incoming data. Fixed, thanks for reporting. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 23 14:51:07 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PKytO-0004CY-Vo for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:51:07 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59777 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKytL-0004Af-RX for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:51:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKytH-00043w-3I for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:51:03 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:40013 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKytH-00043s-1t for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:50:59 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKytE-0002iJ-V1; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:50:57 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKytE-0007E8-Ti; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:50:56 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Bill Auerbach , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31720 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 94.218.178.120 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101123-195056.sv42414.10887@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101121-123958.sv42414.44400@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101123-133143.sv64179.7412@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101123-133143.sv64179.7412@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:50:56 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31720] ARP-queueing: RFC 1122 recommends to queue at least 1 packet X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:51:04 -0000 Update of bug #31720 (project lwip): Status: None => Fixed Assigned to: None => goldsimon Open/Closed: Open => Closed _______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #2: Since noone objected, I've checked in queueing the most recent packet for ARP_QUEUEING==0 (multi-packet-queueing still exists for ARP_QUEUEING==1). ARP_QUEUEING==0 is the default now, since it's good enough for most of us. We might want to change the name of the configuration option, but it does not hurt to leave it as is. > I've read parts of RFC 1122 Hehe, that document is rather long, yes :-) _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 23 15:02:39 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PKz4Z-0002Ai-CY for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:02:39 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51100 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKz41-0001ta-MO for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:02:37 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKz3R-0007W9-T9 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:02:05 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:50366 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKz3R-0007W5-QC for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:01:29 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKz3I-0002pk-JH; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:01:25 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKz3E-0007L7-Dp; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:01:17 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Bill Auerbach , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Bill Auerbach X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31720 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0E) X-Apparently-From: 98.174.85.143 (Savane authenticated user billauerbach) Message-Id: <20101123-150116.sv64179.79570@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101121-123958.sv42414.44400@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101123-133143.sv64179.7412@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101123-195056.sv42414.10887@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101123-195056.sv42414.10887@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:01:16 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31720] ARP-queueing: RFC 1122 recommends to queue at least 1 packet X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:02:37 -0000 Follow-up Comment #3, bug #31720 (project lwip): 116 pages. Yes. :-) Shall I add a task for ARP flooding for 1.4.1? That would appear to be the only non-compliant part of ARP in RFC-1122. I don't think it's a trivial feature. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Nov 23 15:10:24 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PKzC4-00059S-Pd for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:10:24 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46987 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKzBx-00058I-43 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:10:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKzBq-0000hF-3G for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:10:16 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:57059 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKzBp-0000hB-Uw for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:10:10 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKzBp-0002vX-2w; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:10:09 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKzBp-0007RU-0T; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:10:09 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 30185 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 94.218.178.120 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101123-201008.sv42414.89315@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20100621-170602.sv42414.71874@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20100621-170602.sv42414.71874@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:10:09 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #30185] ioctl/FIONREAD/UDP: return total bytes or length of next packet? X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:10:23 -0000 Update of bug #30185 (project lwip): Status: Need Info => Postponed _______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #1: The main problem here is that we don't have the information for unix-style FIONREAD (size of next packet): we only have the total amount of bytes queued in the recvmbox. We would need some kind of 'peek-into-mbox' function to solve this without great overhead if unused. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Wed Nov 24 01:53:31 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PL9ER-00030L-Oz for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:53:31 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=56820 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PL9EP-000308-FQ for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:53:30 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PL9EO-0004YX-G1 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:53:29 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:47360 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PL9EO-0004YT-DP for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:53:28 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PL9EN-0001mG-Gq; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:53:27 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PL9EN-00061A-6G; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:53:27 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31748 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 80.153.29.93 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101124-065326.sv42414.58897@savannah.nongnu.org> References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:53:27 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31748] etharp_query rerequests too frequently for pending entries X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:53:30 -0000 URL: Summary: etharp_query rerequests too frequently for pending entries Project: lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack Submitted by: goldsimon Submitted on: Mi 24 Nov 2010 06:53:26 GMT Category: ARP Severity: 3 - Normal Item Group: Faulty Behaviour Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: lwIP version: CVS Head _______________________________________________________ Details: etharp_query() sends one etharp_request() per output packet if the address's entry is pending. This means that a sudden burst of packets can lead to a broadcast storm, which we might want to prevent. Also, RFC 826 (ARP) and RFC 1122 (requirements for internet hosts) might have something to say on this... _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Wed Nov 24 02:06:48 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PL9RI-0004Vi-Tl for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:06:48 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45726 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PL9RH-0004Vd-9B for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:06:48 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PL9RG-00070l-1N for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:06:47 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:57418 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PL9RF-00070f-S5 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:06:45 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PL9RF-0001x5-4I; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:06:45 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PL9RF-0006B0-1v; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:06:45 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31749 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 80.153.29.93 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101124-070644.sv42414.67706@savannah.nongnu.org> References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:06:45 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31749] doc should be updated to reflect the scope of responsibility for pbufs X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:06:48 -0000 URL: Summary: doc should be updated to reflect the scope of responsibility for pbufs Project: lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack Submitted by: goldsimon Submitted on: Mi 24 Nov 2010 07:06:44 GMT Category: None Severity: 5 - Blocker Item Group: None Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: 1.4.0 lwIP version: CVS Head _______________________________________________________ Details: In task #6735, we kind of decided that an application shall not reuse pbufs once (successfully) passed to an output function (write, send, etc.). This should be clearly documented for 1.4.0 so we can then change the corresponding code: - ARP queueing would not have to copy PBUF_RAM/PBUF_POOL pbufs any more, only PBUF_REF pbufs would have to be copied - anythin else? _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Wed Nov 24 08:29:32 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PLFPg-0004It-CJ for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:29:32 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55184 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PLFPa-0004Hu-ED for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:29:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLFPV-000222-Qt for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:29:26 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:55571 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLFPV-00021t-PX for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:29:21 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PLFPS-0006NQ-4x; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:29:18 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PLFPS-0003xG-3i; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:29:18 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Bill Auerbach , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Bill Auerbach X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31748 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0E) X-Apparently-From: 98.174.85.143 (Savane authenticated user billauerbach) Message-Id: <20101124-082917.sv64179.43081@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101124-065326.sv42414.58897@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101124-065326.sv42414.58897@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:29:18 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31748] etharp_query rerequests too frequently for pending entries X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:29:31 -0000 Follow-up Comment #1, bug #31748 (project lwip): 2.3.2.1: A mechanism to prevent ARP flooding (repeatedly sending an ARP Request for the same IP address, at a high rate) MUST be included. The recommended maximum rate is 1 per second per destination. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Wed Nov 24 08:47:11 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PLFgl-0001gF-31 for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:47:11 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33305 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PLFgi-0001fy-JM for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:47:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLFgg-0005SX-0Q for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:47:08 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:40020 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLFgf-0005SJ-Us for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:47:05 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PLFgb-0006bR-Te; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:47:01 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PLFgb-0004HL-QD; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:47:01 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Bill Auerbach , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Simon Goldschmidt X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31748 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 X-Apparently-From: 80.153.29.93 (Savane authenticated user goldsimon) Message-Id: <20101124-134701.sv42414.27806@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101124-065326.sv42414.58897@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101124-082917.sv64179.43081@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101124-082917.sv64179.43081@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:47:01 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31748] etharp_query rerequests too frequently for pending entries X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:47:09 -0000 Follow-up Comment #2, bug #31748 (project lwip): Given that, I'd change it like this: - in etharp_query, move the call to etharp_request() from 'if(pending)' to 'if(empty)' so that only the first packet sends a request - in etharp_tmr, send a new request for pending entries every second, for some seconds The latter change requires a new timestamp interpretation of ctime and/or a new member to struct etharp_entry. Also, ARP_TMR_INTERVAL has to be decreased from 5 seconds to 1 second. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Wed Nov 24 09:12:53 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PLG5d-0006Rd-OY for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:12:53 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=32985 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PLG5F-0006My-V2 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:12:52 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLG4r-0002zg-Hh for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:12:29 -0500 Received: from colonialone.fsf.org ([140.186.70.51]:33792 helo=internal.in.savannah.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLG4r-0002zY-Df for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:12:05 -0500 Received: from [10.1.0.103] (helo=frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org) by internal.in.savannah.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PLG4p-0006th-Lg; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:12:03 +0000 Received: from www-data by frontend.in.savannah.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PLG4p-0004cS-Jt; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:12:03 +0000 To: Simon Goldschmidt , Bill Auerbach , lwip-devel@nongnu.org From: Bill Auerbach X-Savane-Server: savannah.nongnu.org:443 [10.1.0.104] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 X-Savane-Project: lwip X-Savane-Tracker: bugs X-Savane-Item-ID: 31748 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0E) X-Apparently-From: 98.174.85.143 (Savane authenticated user billauerbach) Message-Id: <20101124-091203.sv64179.6488@savannah.nongnu.org> References: <20101124-065326.sv42414.58897@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101124-082917.sv64179.43081@savannah.nongnu.org> <20101124-134701.sv42414.27806@savannah.nongnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20101124-134701.sv42414.27806@savannah.nongnu.org> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:12:03 +0000 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Cc: Subject: [lwip-devel] [bug #31748] etharp_query rerequests too frequently for pending entries X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:12:52 -0000 Follow-up Comment #3, bug #31748 (project lwip): You could add a member to the ARP table e.g. 'arp_holdoff'. When an ARP request is desired, if arp_holdoff is 0, set it and send the packet. If it's 1, do nothing. Clear arp_holdoff on each call through etharp_tmr. Except for the first miss, ARP replies won't occur more often than ARP_TMR_INTERVAL. If the first request is dropped the second one will occur 0 to ARP_TMR_INTERVAL later which will help a little to shorten the lag on the retry. It recommends 1 second but using 5 isn't a problem in reality, is it? _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.nongnu.org/ From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Nov 26 08:10:19 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PLy4B-0003AC-Hr for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:10:19 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51856 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PLcUN-0004sD-Ag for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:07:56 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLcUM-0003qg-CY for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:07:55 -0500 Received: from mail-qw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.216.45]:59347) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLcUM-0003qT-A0 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:07:54 -0500 Received: by qwf6 with SMTP id 6so428928qwf.4 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:07:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:reply-to:from :date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=A7Rda46xu7/d79W+WK4oOGkAlpPHzZWXP48oGojMBLw=; b=JK/oTiRfRMBUsVJBwMn0ad492zNidjRQGGBFibCv+Rl1dyc5ab9Yck6kR0vEY03IUC H4h1UKXoZTpVrlto1c1gYdV0shkJ5s7od9bNE1BgF736UwdKMDdAS1ojSIunHL0R16F+ +GS2gdRz3MBJQHBs768H+ddgPJRDqxEQ+aUiE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=EGVNdoPIKO782n3TTAnVwWSXfRfrM0xnVnAbwtD8Oa2Q6iiD1phrlt5RPrRr5eLFue lZqh3R/V0K06fUQRqZ70LM+F+DmDtGWWrOd7xUOpINUkS9tux3+yOeGfRp8tPXPKsPLi ZJprDWaBVbtiwRFReCx9Iqls//VISmXRPQH/E= Received: by 10.229.222.212 with SMTP id ih20mr731047qcb.121.1290694072988; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:07:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.22.72 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:07:32 -0800 (PST) From: Andrea Merello Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:07:32 +0100 Message-ID: To: lwip-devel@nongnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:10:18 -0500 Subject: [lwip-devel] tcp_active_pcbs and tcp_listen_pcbs.listen_pcbs Initialization X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: andrea.merello@gmail.com, lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:07:56 -0000 Hi all, I'm doing some experiments about lwip and my ARM processor; I got problems and I found some attempts to dereference broken pointers in lwip initialization functions. tcp_active_pcbs and tcp_listen_pcbs.listen_pcbs looked like not initialized anywhere in lwip code... I searched in the lwip 1.3.2 source code but I couldn't found the initializations... Initializing them to NULL in the tcp_init empty #define fixed my problem.. I suspected it might be a bug in lwip, even if I think it is stange because I guess lwip is used by a broad group of people.. anyway finally I decided to write here... Can please someone enlight me about this? Please CC me as I'm not on the list.. Thanks Andrea From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Nov 26 08:13:15 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PLy71-0003lg-IK for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:13:15 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46910 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PLy6z-0003lX-VY for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:13:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLy6y-0002sI-Aw for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:13:13 -0500 Received: from recoil.dh.bytemark.co.uk ([89.16.177.154]:45824 helo=dark.recoil.org) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLy6y-0002rs-2P for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:13:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 11870 invoked by uid 634); 26 Nov 2010 13:13:10 -0000 Received: from 16.186.34.193.bridgep.com (HELO [10.17.20.20]) (193.34.186.16) (smtp-auth username remote@recoil.org, mechanism cram-md5) by dark.recoil.org (qpsmtpd/0.83) with ESMTPA; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:13:10 +0000 Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] tcp_active_pcbs and tcp_listen_pcbs.listen_pcbs Initialization From: Kieran Mansley To: lwip-devel In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:13:08 +0000 Message-Id: <1290777188.2470.12.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on dark.recoil.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: OpenBSD 3.0-3.9 X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:13:14 -0000 On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 15:07 +0100, Andrea Merello wrote: > I suspected it might be a bug in lwip, even if I think it is stange > because I guess lwip is used by a broad group of people.. anyway > finally I decided to write here... > Can please someone enlight me about this? This question has been asked a few times (but not always about those specific messages. It's defined in the ANSI C standard that global variables should be initialised to zero, and so lwIP doesn't do this itself to make the code smaller. By the way: your messages to lwip-devel are being held for moderation as you're posting from an email address that is not subscribed. This can result in delays (and extra work for me!). Thanks Kieran From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Nov 28 13:27:33 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PMlyH-0000JD-Do for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 13:27:33 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33566 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PMlyE-0000IS-6H for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 13:27:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMlyD-00037r-1p for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 13:27:30 -0500 Received: from [64.141.41.117] (port=47010 helo=mail.inicotech.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMlyC-00036l-Td for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 13:27:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.inicotech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA69530072 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:29:18 -0700 (MST) Received: from mail.inicotech.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail-server.cg.shawcable.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6WlAPZU3m+BR for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:29:16 -0700 (MST) Received: from webmail.inicotech.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.inicotech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6D8530078 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:29:16 -0700 (MST) Received: from 204.191.213.236 (SquirrelMail authenticated user delamer) by webmail.inicotech.com with HTTP; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:29:16 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <64047.204.191.213.236.1290968956.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:29:16 -0700 (MST) From: "Ivan Delamer" To: lwip-devel@nongnu.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) Subject: [lwip-devel] IPv6 for LwIP submission X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ivan Delamer , lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:27:31 -0000 Hello, I have an initial version of the IPv6 implementation for LwIP that I'd like to submit. Which is the best way to submit the code? There are many changes to existing files as well as a few new files, so copy-pasting a patch doesn't seem feasible. I tried sending a message with attachments, but naturally it bounced. Cheers Ivan From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Nov 28 14:03:26 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PMmX0-0000of-KO for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:03:26 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58770 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PMmWx-0000n9-QL for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:03:24 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMmWw-0002tm-Rb for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:03:23 -0500 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:40827 helo=mail.gmx.net) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMmWw-0002rT-EM for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:03:22 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2010 19:03:13 -0000 Received: from dslb-094-218-183-029.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO [192.168.1.20]) [94.218.183.29] by mail.gmx.net (mp014) with SMTP; 28 Nov 2010 20:03:13 +0100 X-Authenticated: #286948 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+4e75LxIa4g21656QgruDygEl2PSmocFvVbxF4SL X5FptE/s0DqEFn Message-ID: <4CF2A771.3070509@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 20:03:13 +0100 From: "goldsimon@gmx.de" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lwip-devel Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] IPv6 for LwIP submission References: <64047.204.191.213.236.1290968956.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> In-Reply-To: <64047.204.191.213.236.1290968956.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 19:03:25 -0000 Ivan Delamer wrote: > I have an initial version of the IPv6 implementation for LwIP that I'd > like to submit. That's great! > Which is the best way to submit the code? There are many > changes to existing files as well as a few new files, so copy-pasting a > patch doesn't seem feasible. The best way to go is create a patch file and submit it as a patch to savannah. That way, I/we can apply the patch to a working copy and test/review the changes. I hope to find the time next week or the one after that to test and maybe include the patch (which depends on the changes made to the main sources). However, the time of integration also depends on the release schedule for 1.4.0: I would tend to releasing 1.4.0 first before adding the patch to CVS... Simon From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Nov 29 04:14:44 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PMzop-00007V-Vk for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:14:44 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41442 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PMzon-00006a-BI for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:14:42 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMzom-0005p6-8r for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:14:41 -0500 Received: from recoil.dh.bytemark.co.uk ([89.16.177.154]:38802 helo=dark.recoil.org) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMzom-0005p2-0c for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:14:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 16503 invoked by uid 634); 29 Nov 2010 09:14:37 -0000 Received: from 16.186.34.193.bridgep.com (HELO [10.17.20.20]) (193.34.186.16) (smtp-auth username remote@recoil.org, mechanism cram-md5) by dark.recoil.org (qpsmtpd/0.83) with ESMTPA; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:14:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] IPv6 for LwIP submission From: Kieran Mansley To: lwip-devel In-Reply-To: <4CF2A771.3070509@gmx.de> References: <64047.204.191.213.236.1290968956.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> <4CF2A771.3070509@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:14:35 +0000 Message-Id: <1291022075.2343.6.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on dark.recoil.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: OpenBSD 3.0-3.9 X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:14:43 -0000 On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 20:03 +0100, goldsimon@gmx.de wrote: > owever, the time of integration also depends on the release schedule > for 1.4.0: I would tend to releasing 1.4.0 first before adding the > patch > to CVS... Absolutely 100% guaranteed that this won't be in 1.4.0. I'm going to try and find the time to make another release candidate for 1.4.0 this week and then hopefully release soon after. Once that's done it would be an excellent time to start folding IPv6 support in. Kieran From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Nov 29 13:33:33 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PN8Xd-0003gE-Kg for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:33:33 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39369 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PN8Xb-0003f8-5L for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:33:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PN8XY-0004NI-Ux for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:33:31 -0500 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]:46908 helo=mail.gmx.net) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PN8XY-0004NB-I6 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:33:28 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2010 18:33:25 -0000 Received: from dslb-188-098-177-115.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO [192.168.1.42]) [188.98.177.115] by mail.gmx.net (mp043) with SMTP; 29 Nov 2010 19:33:25 +0100 X-Authenticated: #286948 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/PBUoBGCbP2aFGe6KDR8CmH+jJkBzctYj4+NkXeK NI0AID6a1JqSFO Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] IPv6 for LwIP submission References: <64047.204.191.213.236.1290968956.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> <4CF2A771.3070509@gmx.de> <1291022075.2343.6.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> From: Simon Goldschmidt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8C148) In-Reply-To: <1291022075.2343.6.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> Message-Id: <5735D906-FE7A-4375-AFDD-7FD4EACD7025@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:34:12 +0100 To: lwip-devel Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8C148) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:33:32 -0000 Kieran Mansley wrote: > Absolutely 100% guaranteed that this won't be in 1.4.0. I'm going to > try and find the time to make another release candidate for 1.4.0 this > week and then hopefully release soon after. Once that's done it would > be an excellent time to start folding IPv6 support in. >=20 That's what I thought. Still, I'd be happy if we could get a savannah patch w= ith your modifications to test and talk about before checking it in some tim= e. Simon= From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Nov 29 15:24:49 2010 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PNAHJ-0003sM-Sb for mharc-lwip-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:24:49 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60435 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PNAHH-0003rH-MM for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:24:48 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PNAHG-00076U-O9 for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:24:47 -0500 Received: from dukecmfep04.coxmail.com ([68.99.120.39]:34599) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PNAHG-00075r-IN for lwip-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:24:46 -0500 Received: from dukecmimpo01.coxmail.com ([68.99.120.134]) by dukecmfep04.coxmail.com (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20101129202433.FXGE5593.dukecmfep04.coxmail.com@dukecmimpo01.coxmail.com> for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:24:33 -0500 Received: from FW2 ([172.18.18.217]) by dukecmimpo01.coxmail.com with bizsmtp id d8QY1f00L4h0NJL018QYhe; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:24:33 -0500 From: "Bill Auerbach" To: "'lwip-devel'" References: <64047.204.191.213.236.1290968956.squirrel@webmail.inicotech.com> <4CF2A771.3070509@gmx.de> <1291022075.2343.6.camel@zircon.uk.level5networks.com> <5735D906-FE7A-4375-AFDD-7FD4EACD7025@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <5735D906-FE7A-4375-AFDD-7FD4EACD7025@gmx.de> Subject: RE: [lwip-devel] IPv6 for LwIP submission Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:24:32 -0500 Message-ID: <002801cb9003$6ee3b6f0$4cab24d0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcuP8/uHhG7BVrVoQrS7K24RGMxLhwAD0J1Q Content-Language: en-us X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: lwip-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwip-devel List-Id: lwip-devel List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:24:48 -0000 How about a branch, so that those of us interested can get to see it sooner than later? Bill >That's what I thought. Still, I'd be happy if we could get a savannah >patch with your modifications to test and talk about before checking it >in some time.