header in fsm_Input() we often end up with a NULL mbuf.
Deal with a possible NULL mbuf being passed into
mbuf_Prepend().
Adjust some spacing to make things more consistent.
the layering.
We now ``stack'' layers as soon as we open the device (when we figure
out what we're dealing with). A static set of `dispatch' routines are
also declared for dealing with incoming packets after they've been
`pulled' up through the stacked layers.
Physical devices are now assigned handlers based on the device type
when they're opened. For the moment there are three device types;
ttys, execs and tcps.
o Increment version number to 2.2
o Make an entry in [uw]tmp for non-tty -direct invocations (after
pap/chap authentication).
o Make throughput counters quad_t's
o Account for the absolute number of mbuf malloc()s and free()s in
``show mem''.
o ``show modem'' becomes ``show physical''.
device per argument rather than the old way of concatenating
everything then splitting the result at commas and whitespace.
Old syntax of ``set device /dev/cuaa0, /dev/cuaa1''
may no longer contain the comma, but syntax such as
``set device "!ssh host ppp -direct label"'' is now
possible.
receiver and one for the sender. This allows two simultaneous
chap conversations - something that I *thought* I was already
doing on a daily basis myself until the existence of the
problem was
Beaten into me by: sos
with our own if there are differing bits (last two revisions
of lcp.c). This change broke at least one negotiation
session.
Instead, we just use an OR of the two accmap values when
we're doing the ASYNC framing.
with more than one read(). When we detect one, don't
forget to pass it to async_Input() and drop our
terminal back into command mode.
Don't output an extraneous \r if we're passed \r\n
to prompt_vprintf in raw mode.
when recalculating the ip checksum. cp is not guaranteed to
be aligned. It now doesn't matter that cp isn't aligned as
the caller does another mbuf_Alloc() regardless.
need to process a signal (usually a SIGALRM). Check to see
if we need to process a signal both before *and* after calling
select() as older (pre-2.0) versions of ppp used to.
This handles the possibility that ppp may block at some
point (maybe due to an open() of a misconfigured device).
Previously, we'd potentially lock up in select().
The `necessary' marker reduces the increased signal checking
overhead so that at full speed with no compression transferring
an 83Mb file via a ``!ppp -direct'' device, we get a 1%
throughput gain.
ACCMAP being REQuested by the peer, also increment our FSM
id so that we don't end up sending out a new REQ with the
same ID and different data (the changed ACCMAP).
when we've simply missed a packet.
When our Predictor1 CRC is wrong (implying we've dropped
a packet), don't send a ResetReq(). Instead, send another
CCP ConfigReq(). *shrug* My tests show this as being far
worse than the ResetReq as we may have further Nak/Rejs etc
and we're basically resetting both our incoming and outgoing
compression dictionaries, but rfc1978 says the ConfigReq is
correct, so we'd better go along...
This was pretty harmless as netmasks on a POINTOPOINT
interface are pretty much ignored, but it looked funny.
Mention the configured netmask in ``show ipcp''.
Describe in more detail what a proxy arp entry is.
peers by ORing the two together and NAKing or REQing
the result rather than allowing seperate local/peer
values.
If the peer REJs our ACCMAP and our ACCMAP isn't 0,
warn about it and ignore the rejection.
``closing''.
Pointed out by: archie
Don't do a TLF when we get a ``Catastrphic Protocol Reject'' event
in state ``closed'' or ``stopped''.
Pointed out but not suggested by: archie
This makes no difference in the current implementation as
LcpLayerFinish() does nothing but log the event, but I disagree
in principle because it unbalances the TLF/TLS calls which
(IMHO) doesn't fit with the intentions of the RFC.
Maybe the RFC author had a reason for this. It can only happen
in two circumstances:
- if LCP has already been negotiated then stopped or closed and we
receive a protocol reject, then we must already have done a TLF.
Why do one again and stay in the same state ?
- if LCP hasn't yet been started and we receive an unsolicted
protocol reject, why should we TLF when we haven't done a TLS ?
