Re: netstat caused a SIGSEGV

[Bernard F6BVP <f6bvp@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Bernd,

Actually, rose->state is determined by a state machine with
only defined ROSE_STATE_0 to ROSE_STATE_5.
So, there is no risk for an extraneous state to be selected.
The error was mine, when I first duplicated NetRom code to introduce
ROSE protocol in netstat.
The two submitted patch are complementary and should be both applied.
Thank you for considering my proposal.

Bernard



Le 16/08/2010 18:00, Bernd Eckenfels a écrit :
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 04:01:49PM +0200, Bernard F6BVP wrote:
>    
> > The present patch corrects this bug by initializing rose_state[]
> > correctly according to linux/include/net/rose.h
> >      
> Thanks, can you please also add a "unknown state" option in case the kernel
> adds new states?  Will integrate that to upstream CVS later this week.
>
> Greetings
> Bernd
>    
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html