From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] sctp: not copying duplicate addrs to the assoc's bind address list Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:35:02 -0500 Message-ID: <20161219123502.GA19620@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <130956b1e880eab780162a795fde156d61d4de0f.1471605833.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> <20160819175007.GB3578@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20160822142538.GA10323@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20160824103854.GA13154@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: network dev , linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, davem , Marcelo Ricardo Leitner , Vlad Yasevich , Daniel Borkmann To: Xin Long Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:60084 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751673AbcLSMfu (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2016 07:35:50 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 05:56:51PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:14:27PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > >> >> > Ah, I see what you're doing. Ok, this makes some sense, at least on the receive > >> >> > side, when you get a cookie unpacked and modify the remote peers address list, > >> >> > it makes sense to check for duplicates. On the local side however, I would, > >> >> > instead of checking it when the list gets copied, I'd check it when the master > >> >> > list gets updated (in the NETDEV_UP event notifier for the local address list, > >> >> > >> >> I was thinking about to check it in the NETDEV_UP, yes it can make the > >> >> master list has no duplicated addresses. But what if two same addresses > >> >> events come, and they come from different NICs (though I can't point out > >> >> the valid use case), then we filter there. > >> >> > >> > That I think would be a bug in the protocol code. For the ipv4 case, all > >> > addresses are owned by the system and the same addresses added to multiple > >> > interfaces should not be allowed. The same is true of ipv6 case. The only > >> > exception there is a link local address and that should still be unique within > >> > the context of an address/dev tuple. > >> > > >> understand, just sounds a little harsh. :-) > >> > >> For now, does it make sense to you to just leave as the master list > >> is, and check > >> the duplicate address when sctp is really binding them ? > >> > > I would think so, yes. > > Hi, Neil, > > About this patch, I think we are on the page, right ? > Yes, I think we are. Neil > If yes, I will repost v2, but other than improving some changelog, > no other change compare to v1. Do you agree ? > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:35:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] sctp: not copying duplicate addrs to the assoc's bind address list Message-Id: <20161219123502.GA19620@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> List-Id: References: <130956b1e880eab780162a795fde156d61d4de0f.1471605833.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> <20160819175007.GB3578@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20160822142538.GA10323@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20160824103854.GA13154@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Xin Long Cc: network dev , linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, davem , Marcelo Ricardo Leitner , Vlad Yasevich , Daniel Borkmann On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 05:56:51PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:14:27PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > >> >> > Ah, I see what you're doing. Ok, this makes some sense, at least on the receive > >> >> > side, when you get a cookie unpacked and modify the remote peers address list, > >> >> > it makes sense to check for duplicates. On the local side however, I would, > >> >> > instead of checking it when the list gets copied, I'd check it when the master > >> >> > list gets updated (in the NETDEV_UP event notifier for the local address list, > >> >> > >> >> I was thinking about to check it in the NETDEV_UP, yes it can make the > >> >> master list has no duplicated addresses. But what if two same addresses > >> >> events come, and they come from different NICs (though I can't point out > >> >> the valid use case), then we filter there. > >> >> > >> > That I think would be a bug in the protocol code. For the ipv4 case, all > >> > addresses are owned by the system and the same addresses added to multiple > >> > interfaces should not be allowed. The same is true of ipv6 case. The only > >> > exception there is a link local address and that should still be unique within > >> > the context of an address/dev tuple. > >> > > >> understand, just sounds a little harsh. :-) > >> > >> For now, does it make sense to you to just leave as the master list > >> is, and check > >> the duplicate address when sctp is really binding them ? > >> > > I would think so, yes. > > Hi, Neil, > > About this patch, I think we are on the page, right ? > Yes, I think we are. Neil > If yes, I will repost v2, but other than improving some changelog, > no other change compare to v1. Do you agree ? >