Ondrej Zajicek <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 07:07:49PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> Intervals are carried as 16-bit centisecond values, but kept internally >> in 16-bit second values, which causes a potential for overflow. This >> adds some checks to make sure this doesn't happen. >> >> + /* make sure we don't overflow the 16-bit centisec fields */ >> if (!BABEL_IFACE->update_interval) >> - BABEL_IFACE->update_interval = >> BABEL_IFACE->hello_interval*BABEL_UPDATE_INTERVAL_FACTOR; >> - BABEL_IFACE->ihu_interval = >> BABEL_IFACE->hello_interval*BABEL_IHU_INTERVAL_FACTOR; >> + BABEL_IFACE->update_interval = >> MIN_(BABEL_IFACE->hello_interval*BABEL_UPDATE_INTERVAL_FACTOR, >> BABEL_MAX_INTERVAL); >> + BABEL_IFACE->ihu_interval = >> MIN_(BABEL_IFACE->hello_interval*BABEL_IHU_INTERVAL_FACTOR, >> BABEL_MAX_INTERVAL); > > This is not completely correct, because IHU interval is not independent > of hello_interval in this implementation - IHUs are sent for each > BABEL_IHU_INTERVAL_FACTOR hellos even if ihu_interval is limited by this.
Yeah, you're right. Hmm, guess it doesn't really make sense to have the IHU interval configurable by itself, then? -Toke
