lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #34846, LWIP segfaults from IPv6...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #34846: LWIP segfaults from IPv6 reassembly timer
Submitter: | Sebastian Unger <sebunger> | ||
Submitted: | Thu 17 Nov 2011 12:40:51 AM UTC | ||
Category: | IPv6 | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | Crash Error | Status: | Fixed |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | None |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | CVS Head |
Jump to the original submission
Tue 13 Mar 2012 04:31:45 PM UTC, comment #12: |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Fri 20 Jan 2012 04:22:28 PM UTC, comment #11: It's been working well for me, but we should run the original test to be sure. |
Ivan Delamer <idelamer> |
Fri 20 Jan 2012 06:41:24 AM UTC, comment #10: What's the status on this? It's fixed, isn't it? Sebastian, any progress testing this again? |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 29 Nov 2011 07:53:56 PM UTC, comment #9: I modified this again. We were checking for current_netif == NULL, but sometimes this was not true. For example, when someone sends a fragment and we free the oldest fragment in buffer, we were sending time-exceeded to the latter (as ip6_current_src() was a valid address, but the wrong one). |
Ivan Delamer <idelamer> |
Tue 22 Nov 2011 08:44:48 PM UTC, comment #8: Thanks for fixing that oversight. |
Ivan Delamer <idelamer> |
Tue 22 Nov 2011 08:43:31 PM UTC, comment #7: Ivan, there was an alignment problem in your fix (cannot assign (packed) ip6_addr_p_t* to ip6_addr_t*) which I just fixed (need to copy the packed address to an aligned address first). |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 17 Nov 2011 05:57:59 PM UTC, comment #6: I've pushed a fix for this, Sebastian can you run your test again, if successfull I will close this bug.
|
Ivan Delamer <idelamer> |
Thu 17 Nov 2011 05:26:56 PM UTC, comment #5: Hey Sebastian, thanks for posting the bug.
|
Ivan Delamer <idelamer> |
Thu 17 Nov 2011 07:01:45 AM UTC, comment #4: If the packets originate from a link-local address and you don't know the netif, you can't tell where to send the responses, or can you? If so, there's no problem with your suggestion.
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 17 Nov 2011 06:53:53 AM UTC, comment #3: What's the reasoning behind sending the ICMP out on the exact same interface the packet came in on? My patch changes that and uses the normal routing to determine the interface the packet should be sent out on. I believe that's a better solution because it probably works better with mobile IP v6.
|
Sebastian Unger <sebunger> |
Thu 17 Nov 2011 06:28:21 AM UTC, comment #2:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 17 Nov 2011 04:10:50 AM UTC, comment #1: BTW the version says CVS Head, but it really is the GIT HEAD. |
Sebastian Unger <sebunger> |
Thu 17 Nov 2011 12:40:51 AM UTC, original submission:
Hi there,
|
Sebastian Unger <sebunger> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 5 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012-03-13 | kieranm | Status | Ready For Test | Fixed | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2012-01-20 | goldsimon | Status | None | Ready For Test | |
2011-11-17 | sebunger | Attached File | - | Added routeICMPMessages.diff.gz, #24388 | |
2011-11-17 | sebunger | Carbon-Copy | - | Added sebunger |
Powered by Savane 3.13-758e.
Corresponding source code
Lets assume it is fixed and reopen if Sebastian updates otherwise.