> OK, I think I see the area in 'sscanf(...)' . Their is only one
> entry that is numeric in the whole string a '%02x' .
Yes.
> But why did this rear it's head after 2.1.125(or so) ?
> I have been using 3.5.x series on my 2.1.12x system at home
> for some time now . :-}
I have no idea 8) For me it complained even in 2.0, but only
on routes, added by previous instanse of itself (loopback and aggregate
rejects). In 2.1 it always complains on all the routes.
> Heck, I'll just give it a try . ;-)
Seems, I accumulated some stamina and will port it back to 3.5
and prune the most weird hacks from the patch.
> You mean the one reported by Serguei Koubouchine ?
Yes, it was broken masquerading.
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/