As I said as a reply to the other mail, this is totally bogus, you misunderstood the privacy_mismatch() return value. > - sdata->u.sta.key_management_enabled = !!data->value; > + sdata->u.sta.key_management_enabled = data->value; This is just wrong, !! is there for a reason. I think key_management_enabled is a smaller datatype so if data->value is large enough you'll get 0 here for nonzero data->value without !!. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
