Was this fix tested properly? As far as I understand, this is a byte order issue, which means it could have been fixed on some architecture, but may break another. Or may interact badly with 64 bit. Was this tested on all architectures to make sure it properly fixed the issue everywhere, before being incorporated in trunk and backported to 1.3?
On Friday 04 July 2008, Henning Westerholt wrote: > Revision: 4452 > http://openser.svn.sourceforge.net/openser/?rev=4452&view=rev > Author: henningw > Date: 2008-07-04 09:09:15 -0700 (Fri, 04 Jul 2008) > > Log Message: > ----------- > - backport rev4332 from trunk > - Fix problem in the allow_address() and allow_source_address() > functions, they worked properly only with /0, /8, /16, /24, /32 > netmasks so far. > > Revision Links: > -------------- > http://openser.svn.sourceforge.net/openser/?rev=4332&view=rev > > Modified Paths: > -------------- > branches/1.3/modules/permissions/hash.c > > > This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development > platform, the world's largest Open Source development site. > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.openser.org > http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Dan _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.openser.org http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
