On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:56:49 -0600
Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since a5fe736eaf9bae1b45317313de04b564441b94f2 (2.6.13-rc1 ish),
is_valid_ether_addr() has been broken, because its assumption that
FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF is a multicast address is wrong. Ouch.
Signed-off-by: Michael
I'm (easily) confused.
Unless the specs have changed recently, the broadcast address of all 1's
is just a special type of multicast adddress, that all stations shall be
able to recognize.
In looking at the code in etherdevice.h it looks like the test of
is_multicast_ether_addr() is broken,
Looks like jeff touched is_multicast_addr last.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
David S. Miller wrote:
From: Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:56:49 -0600
Since a5fe736eaf9bae1b45317313de04b564441b94f2 (2.6.13-rc1 ish),
is_valid_ether_addr() has been broken, because its assumption that
FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF is a multicast address is wrong. Ouch.
From: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:26:43 -0500
David S. Miller wrote:
Good catch, patch applied.
Fix this, and you break wireless. We need to split up definitions,
otherwise you fix one code to break another.
Ok, I'll back it out of my tree and let you guys
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:26, Jeff Garzik wrote:
David S. Miller wrote:
From: Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:56:49 -0600
Since a5fe736eaf9bae1b45317313de04b564441b94f2 (2.6.13-rc1 ish),
is_valid_ether_addr() has been broken, because its assumption that
