New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix that ParseTcpOption doesn't work correctly #248

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 27, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@ajeecai
Contributor

ajeecai commented Aug 4, 2016

Suppose there is a TCP SYN or SYN-ACK packet taking options as:
02 04 05 b4 01 01 04 02 01 03 03 04
which is
Options: (12 bytes)
>Maximum segment size: 1460 bytes
>No-Operation (NOP)
>No-Operation (NOP)
>TCP SACK Permitted Option: True
>No-Operation (NOP)
>Window scale: 4 (multiply by 16)

Then the original parse function only returns MSS 1460 while WSS is 0.

Fix that ParseTcpOption doesn't work correctly
Suppose there is a TCP SYN or SYN-ACK packet taking options as:
    02 04 05 b4 01 01 04 02 01 03 03 04 
which is 
Options: (12 bytes)
    >Maximum segment size: 1460 bytes
    >No-Operation (NOP)
    >No-Operation (NOP)
    >TCP SACK Permitted Option: True
    >No-Operation (NOP)
    >Window scale: 4 (multiply by 16)

Then the original parse function only returns MSS 1460 while WSS is 0.
@dnobori

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dnobori

dnobori Sep 14, 2016

Member

Your great patch is much appreciated. We are considering to apply your patch into the SoftEther VPN main tree.

SoftEther VPN Patch Acceptance Policy:
http://www.softether.org/5-download/src/9.patch

You have two options which are described on the above policy.
Could you please choose either option 1 or 2, and specify it clearly on the reply?

Member

dnobori commented Sep 14, 2016

Your great patch is much appreciated. We are considering to apply your patch into the SoftEther VPN main tree.

SoftEther VPN Patch Acceptance Policy:
http://www.softether.org/5-download/src/9.patch

You have two options which are described on the above policy.
Could you please choose either option 1 or 2, and specify it clearly on the reply?

@ajeecai

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ajeecai

ajeecai Sep 16, 2016

Contributor

OK, I didn't notice this policy choice before.

I choose this:
Contribution option (1): Allowing us to apply the same patch into PacketiX VPN.

Thanks

Contributor

ajeecai commented Sep 16, 2016

OK, I didn't notice this policy choice before.

I choose this:
Contribution option (1): Allowing us to apply the same patch into PacketiX VPN.

Thanks

@dnobori dnobori merged commit 3292d83 into SoftEtherVPN:master Nov 27, 2016

@dnobori dnobori referenced this pull request Nov 27, 2016

Closed

Is this project DEAD? #268

@dnobori

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dnobori

dnobori Nov 27, 2016

Member

Thank you so much for your contribution to enrich the SoftEther VPN source code.

Your patch has been merged on the main source-tree of SoftEther VPN.

As a token of our gratitude, your GitHub username has been added on the AUTHORS.TXT file and on the header of the related source file.
Please see: https://github.com/SoftEtherVPN/SoftEtherVPN/blob/master/AUTHORS.TXT

Thanks again for your contribution.

Member

dnobori commented Nov 27, 2016

Thank you so much for your contribution to enrich the SoftEther VPN source code.

Your patch has been merged on the main source-tree of SoftEther VPN.

As a token of our gratitude, your GitHub username has been added on the AUTHORS.TXT file and on the header of the related source file.
Please see: https://github.com/SoftEtherVPN/SoftEtherVPN/blob/master/AUTHORS.TXT

Thanks again for your contribution.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment