Re: Problems with conserver after OS upgrade

On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 09:58:03AM -0400, Chris Ross wrote:
>   Looking at this a little more, that difference there was the important one.  
> The patch in the email thread which you mention above compares sa_len to 
> sizeof(ifr->ifr_irfu).  The code in conserver, however, compares against 
> sizeof(ifr->ifr_addr).  ifr_addr is an element in the union (ifr_ifru), but 
> not the largest one, so those sizeof's yield different results.

Thanks for digging into that for me...it certainly is a problem in the
conserver code.  After you pointed out the specifics of the problem (I
glanced right over that), I found this too:

https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-hackers/2007-September/000767.html

which explains the "problem" in detail...and why it happened to work
before but is broken now.  The change you made looks appropriate for
any OS...certainly the right thing to do.

Thanks for tracking this down!

Bryan