From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ipv6: Allow accepting RA from local IP addresses. Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:48:39 +0200 Message-ID: <1403686119.29802.9.camel@localhost> References: <1403644488-21709-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <1403644488-21709-2-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <53A9FA0A.70902@yoshifuji.org> <53AA3FB2.3080204@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki , netdev@vger.kernel.org, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki , hideaki.yoshifuji@miraclelinux.com To: Ben Greear Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:49083 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753118AbaFYIsm (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:48:42 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A85F211BF for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:48:41 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <53AA3FB2.3080204@candelatech.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Di, 2014-06-24 at 20:19 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > On 06/24/2014 03:22 PM, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote: > > Hello. > > > > (2014/06/25 6:14), greearb@candelatech.com wrote: > >> From: Ben Greear > >> > >> This can be used in virtual networking applications, and > >> may have other uses as well. The option is disabled by > >> default, so no change to current operating behaviour > > > > standard compliant behavior? > > I've no idea. Can you point me to the proper standard (and > pertinent section)? > > >> without the user explicitly changing the behaviour. > >> > > > > Would you include your specific example? > > I gave one in a response to comments on v1 of this patch. It would be nice if you could include this into the changelog. > Basically, I make a single OS instance look like a bunch of > routers, bridges, and hosts. Without use of network namespaces, > virtual machines, or other such virtualization. Just clever use > of ip rules and routes. So, I need interfaces to be able to accept > RA from other interfaces on the same system. > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg286764.html > > > >> +static bool ipv6_accept_ra_local(struct inet6_dev *in6_dev, struct sk_buf *skb) > >> +{ > >> + /* Do not accept RA with source-addr found on local machine unless > >> + * accept_ra_from_local is set to true. > >> + */ > >> + if (!in6_dev->cnf.accept_ra_from_local && > >> + ipv6_chk_addr(dev_net(in6_dev->dev), &ipv6_hdr(skb)->saddr, > >> + NULL, 0)) > >> + return false; > >> + return true; > >> +} > >> + > >> + > >> static void ndisc_router_discovery(struct sk_buff *skb) > >> { > >> struct ra_msg *ra_msg = (struct ra_msg *)skb_transport_header(skb); > >> @@ -1151,10 +1164,9 @@ static void ndisc_router_discovery(struct sk_buff *skb) > >> goto skip_defrtr; > >> } > >> > >> - if (ipv6_chk_addr(dev_net(in6_dev->dev), &ipv6_hdr(skb)->saddr, > >> - NULL, 0)) { > >> + if (!ipv6_accept_ra_local(in6_dev, skb)) { > >> ND_PRINTK(2, info, > >> - "RA: %s, chk_addr failed for dev: %s\n", > >> + "RA: %s, accept_ra_local failed for dev: %s\n", > >> __func__, skb->dev->name); > >> goto skip_defrtr; > >> } > > > > Hmm, without global knob, I see little benefit by > > having new helper. > > A previous reviewer requested it. I don't care either > way, seems fine to open-code it to me. Hmm, sorry to revert my opinion here. Passing a whole skb reference to the helper function disqualifies this as a small helper function. ;) I first thought about something like: static bool ipv6_accept_ra_local(idev) { return in6_dev->cnf.accept_ra_from_local || dev_net(idev->dev)->devconf_all.accept_ra_from_local; } ...but without devconf_all->... test or alike it doesn't seem to make much sense if you only process one flag, sorry. Sorry, Hannes