)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":1000007,"name":"ordex","display_name":"Antonio Quartulli","email":"antonio@mandelbit.com","username":"ordex"},"change_message_id":"9c1aeb6f8bc15354297f60db3b51fc19bb0d6fe8","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"4215122a_12f17cd8","updated":"2026-07-28 19:06:34.000000000","message":"I think the commit message is quite misleading. From it I understand you are fixing some notation to make the computation more clear.\nBut from the GH report I understand this is really fixing the computation (the commit title agrees).\n\nMaybe the commit message is justifying why you are doing things this way, rather than setting packet_id_long_form to true?\n\nStill, I think you should add a line explaining what we are fixing: i.e. the packet ID size computation was not considering the epoch case and was falling back to XX bytes, which is smaller than expected, resulting in MTU screw up","commit_id":"8633bd5a871a62e457eeb592467f2af21678e7b6"},{"author":{"_account_id":1000007,"name":"ordex","display_name":"Antonio Quartulli","email":"antonio@mandelbit.com","username":"ordex"},"change_message_id":"0816132e0ca9e1ac1ddf631c634a0277c89347cd","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"345e22e2_5eb0e9b8","updated":"2026-07-28 22:26:51.000000000","message":"commit message wording can be improved a little, but it now contains all the needed bits.","commit_id":"c4c3172a707875fbb49f214adb2c12526d545488"}],"src/openvpn/mtu.c":[{"author":{"_account_id":1000007,"name":"ordex","display_name":"Antonio Quartulli","email":"antonio@mandelbit.com","username":"ordex"},"change_message_id":"9c1aeb6f8bc15354297f60db3b51fc19bb0d6fe8","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":56,"context_line":""},{"line_number":57,"context_line":"    if (epoch)"},{"line_number":58,"context_line":"    {"},{"line_number":59,"context_line":"        return sizeof(uint64_t);"},{"line_number":60,"context_line":"    }"},{"line_number":61,"context_line":""},{"line_number":62,"context_line":"    bool packet_id_long_form \u003d !tlsmode || cipher_kt_mode_ofb_cfb(kt-\u003ecipher);"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-csrc","patch_set":1,"id":"3ac069bb_6ba4a15b","line":59,"updated":"2026-07-28 19:06:34.000000000","message":"since we don\u0027t have explicit members to call sizeof() on, how about a little comment explaining the meaning behind the magic uint64_t?\n\ni.e. /* 16 bit epoch + 48 bit IV */","commit_id":"8633bd5a871a62e457eeb592467f2af21678e7b6"},{"author":{"_account_id":1000003,"name":"plaisthos","display_name":"Arne Schwabe","email":"arne-openvpn@rfc2549.org","username":"plaisthos"},"change_message_id":"a4b707de27f6fccba72aeeb832f97ac350423282","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":56,"context_line":""},{"line_number":57,"context_line":"    if (epoch)"},{"line_number":58,"context_line":"    {"},{"line_number":59,"context_line":"        return sizeof(uint64_t);"},{"line_number":60,"context_line":"    }"},{"line_number":61,"context_line":""},{"line_number":62,"context_line":"    bool packet_id_long_form \u003d !tlsmode || cipher_kt_mode_ofb_cfb(kt-\u003ecipher);"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-csrc","patch_set":1,"id":"ca860431_f7fc1356","line":59,"in_reply_to":"3ac069bb_6ba4a15b","updated":"2026-07-28 23:00:03.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"8633bd5a871a62e457eeb592467f2af21678e7b6"}]}