Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] pull request [net]: batman-adv 20160216

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 03:37:18PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > And thanks for the heads up about the potential merge issues, I'll watch > for that. > Hi David, actually I just realized that the patches that will create the conflict are not yet in net-next, but they are still pending in my

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Unsigned integer overflow in batadv_iv_ogm_calc_tq

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 01:35:31PM +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote: > It is easy to see that > > batadv_ogm_packet::tq (u8 255) * > tq_own (u8 255) * > tq_asym_penalty (int 134) * > tq_iface_penalty (int 255) > > is outside the range of an signed integer (32 bit). The maximum seen >

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] pull request [net]: batman-adv 20160216

From: Antonio Quartulli Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:01:25 +0800 > this pull request is intended for net. > > Two of the fixes included in this patchset prevent a wrong memory > access - it was triggered when removing an object from a list > after it was already free'd due to bad

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Still looping packets in bla setup

Hi Andreas, On Friday 19 February 2016 11:58:47 Andreas Pape wrote: > Hello Simon, > > I'm still working with my IT department to be able to send the patches in > a way compliant to the documentation provided by Sven. In the meantime I > reworked the patches, but I am still struggling with the

[B.A.T.M.A.N.] Still looping packets in bla setup

Hello Simon, I'm still working with my IT department to be able to send the patches in a way compliant to the documentation provided by Sven. In the meantime I reworked the patches, but I am still struggling with the e-mail client issue. Nevertheless if I apply all the patches I sent earlier