lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #40303, DHCP xid renewed when sending a...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #40303: DHCP xid renewed when sending a DHCPREQUEST
Submitter: | Florent Matignon <fmatignon> | ||
Submitted: | Fri 18 Oct 2013 02:48:54 PM UTC | ||
Category: | DHCP | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | Faulty Behaviour | Status: | Fixed |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | goldsimon |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | git head |
Jump to the original submission
Thu 27 Feb 2014 10:02:00 PM UTC, comment #6: |
Bill Auerbach <billauerbach> |
Thu 27 Feb 2014 09:44:40 PM UTC, comment #5: Fixed, thanks for reporting. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 27 Feb 2014 09:35:50 PM UTC, comment #4: Quotes from RFC 2131:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 18 Oct 2013 04:53:49 PM UTC, comment #3: I see now. You're right, as far as I read it. It looks like xid should be changed only on a non-retransmission of a DHCPDISCOVER. You're right too in that it is a session id.
|
Bill Auerbach <billauerbach> |
Fri 18 Oct 2013 04:02:59 PM UTC, comment #2: The quote is from the "DHCP client behavior" section.
|
Florent Matignon <fmatignon> |
Fri 18 Oct 2013 03:39:52 PM UTC, comment #1: Isn't this part of the RFC you quite making a statement to the requirements of the server? If lwIP sends a DHCPREQUEST the server needs to keep xid the same in the DHCPOFFER. lwIP doesn't send a DHCPOFFER. Unless of course I'm misreading the code. |
Bill Auerbach <billauerbach> |
Fri 18 Oct 2013 02:48:54 PM UTC, original submission:
lwIP always renews the 'xid' field of a DHCP packet when sending a new packet:
|
Florent Matignon <fmatignon> |
No files currently attached
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 3 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2014-02-27 | goldsimon | Status | None | Fixed | |
Assigned to | None | goldsimon | |||
Open/Closed | Open | Closed |
Powered by Savane 3.13-3230.
Corresponding source code
Yes, it is OK since it's only changed in dhcp_create_message and then stored in dhcp->xid; There is no requirement that x_id's increment.
If using LWIP_DHCP_RAND it assumes rand() never returns 2 values the same. Hopefully no one starts DHCP and then uses an srand()!