* MARK target with unsigned long
@ 2003-09-05 15:25 Eric Crossman
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Eric Crossman @ 2003-09-05 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netfilter list
Has anyone run across a problem trying to use the high order bits in
MARKing packets (i.e. 0xffffffff)? The fwmark seems to be using a signed
long opposed to an unsigned long with limits the highest allowable value
to 0x7fffffff. I have created the following patch which uses an unsigned
long. Is this a legitimate fix that won't interfere with other parts of
the iptables code?
diff -Naur iptables-1.2.8.orig/iptables.c iptables-1.2.8/iptables.c
--- iptables-1.2.8.orig/iptables.c 2003-03-31 07:11:55.000000000 -0500
+++ iptables-1.2.8/iptables.c 2003-08-30 16:08:05.000000000 -0400
@@ -889,12 +889,12 @@
string_to_number(const char *s, unsigned int min, unsigned int max,
unsigned int *ret)
{
- long number;
+ unsigned long number;
char *end;
/* Handle hex, octal, etc. */
errno = 0;
- number = strtol(s, &end, 0);
+ number = strtoul(s, &end, 0);
if (*end == '\0' && end != s) {
/* we parsed a number, let's see if we want this */
if (errno != ERANGE && min <= number && number <= max) {
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Crossman <eric.crossman@critical.com>
Critical Technologies Inc.
1001 Broad St., Suite 400
Utica, NY 13501
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2003-09-05 15:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-09-05 15:25 MARK target with unsigned long Eric Crossman
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.