On 17/03/2025 13:47, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
Hello,
A few comments since it seems you'll have to send one more version
(otherwise they could be fixed later).
2025-03-12, 21:54:27 +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/net/ovpn/netlink.c b/drivers/net/ovpn/netlink.c
index 8d267d4c82283d9b5f989478102086ce385195d5..407b5b908be431625a3c258e7887211ef0f4b197 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ovpn/netlink.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ovpn/netlink.c
[...]
+static int ovpn_nl_peer_modify(struct ovpn_peer *peer, struct genl_info *info,
+ struct nlattr **attrs)
+{
+ struct sockaddr_storage ss = {};
+ void *local_ip = NULL;
+ u32 interv, timeout;
+ bool rehash = false;
+ int ret;
+
+ spin_lock_bh(&peer->lock);
+
+ if (ovpn_nl_attr_sockaddr_remote(attrs, &ss)) {
+ /* we carry the local IP in a generic container.
+ * ovpn_peer_reset_sockaddr() will properly interpret it
+ * based on ss.ss_family
+ */
+ local_ip = ovpn_nl_attr_local_ip(attrs);
+
+ /* set peer sockaddr */
+ ret = ovpn_peer_reset_sockaddr(peer, &ss, local_ip);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT_MOD(info->extack,
+ "cannot set peer sockaddr: %d",
+ ret);
+ goto err_unlock;
+ }
Similar to the floating case, this should reset the peer dst_cache? In
both cases we're updating the remote peer's address and our local
address.
makes sense.
Then I should probably move the call to dst_cache_reset() to
ovpn_peer_reset_sockaddr() and slightly adjust
ovpn_peer_endpoints_update() to avoid a double invocation.
...
diff --git a/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c b/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c
index 0d8b12fd5de4cd6fe15455b435c7d6807203a825..aead1d75400a604a320c886aed5308fb20475da3 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c
...
@@ -1335,8 +1356,11 @@ void ovpn_peer_keepalive_work(struct work_struct *work)
netdev_dbg(ovpn->dev,
"scheduling keepalive work: now=%llu next_run=%llu delta=%llu\n",
next_run, now, next_run - now);
+ /* due to the waiting above, the next_run deadline may have
+ * passed: in this case we reschedule the worker immediately
+ */
schedule_delayed_work(&ovpn->keepalive_work,
- (next_run - now) * HZ);
+ (now - next_run) * HZ);
This whole hunk should be dropped, no? The comment is outdated, and
the sign swap is confusing me.
ouch right. fix-during-rebase gone slightly wrong.
Thanks!
--
Antonio Quartulli
OpenVPN Inc.
