From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Marek Lindner Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 23:21:02 +0800 References: <20100308151244.GA4468@lunn.ch> In-Reply-To: <20100308151244.GA4468@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201003082321.03064.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] FWD: batman: potential null dereference Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking On Monday 08 March 2010 23:12:44 Andrew Lunn wrote: > Does somebody have time to look at this? As far as I understand the question is: What happens if !orig_node->router && !neigh_node go into update_route() ? Fairly easy to answer: Only update_routes() (note the "s") calls update_route() which checks for this case: if (orig_node->router != neigh_node) update_route() Not very obvious though ... Regards, Marek PS: Can we somehow better communicate that we have a mailing list for these kind of questions ?