Re: [lwip-users] What is the correct approach for sanity checks on heade

lwip-users

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lwip-users] What is the correct approach for sanity checks on heade

From:	address@hidden
Subject:	Re: [lwip-users] What is the correct approach for sanity checks on header fields?
Date:	Thu, 22 Nov 2012 18:22:07 +0100
User-agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1

Martin Sträng wrote:

To me it seems unintended that invalid input packets should result in an assertion.

Yep, that's not the intended way. Invalid packets should only be dropped.

Could you file a bug report (ideally including a patch and a unit test that reproduces/checks this)? That would be great!

Simon

[Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread]

[lwip-users] What is the correct approach for sanity checks on header fields?, Martin Sträng, 2012/11/21
- Re: [lwip-users] What is the correct approach for sanity checks on header fields?, address@hidden <=

Prev by Date: Re: [lwip-users] lwIP IPv6 availability for the whole TCP/IP stack
Next by Date: Re: [lwip-users] Delelop TCP/IP Stack for Microcontroller
Previous by thread: [lwip-users] What is the correct approach for sanity checks on header fields?
Next by thread: Re: [lwip-users] New FreeRTOS/LPC1769/lwIP examples
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread