On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 05:56:51PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 ? > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
