On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 11:53 +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2013, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> > > > + unlikely(!atomic_read(&cp->dest->weight)) &&
> > >
> > > We should add '!iph.fragoffs &&' here.
> > Do we really need that?
> > I don't think a SYN can be fragmented.
> SYNs are usually not fragmented. But we don't have the
> right to search for SYN in a packet without TCP header. It can
> be data fragment that contains 1 at this bit position, when
> weight=0 such packets should be forwarded as part of existing
Shame on me, I should really have thought about that...
I think I know who invented the iph.fragoffs :-)
> Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature