netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv6: fix run pending DAD when interface becomes ready

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4911755C.4030504@bull.net>
Date:	Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:28:44 +0100
From:	Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: fix run pending DAD when interface becomes ready

David Miller wrote:
> From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:51:22 -0800 (PST)
> 
>> From: Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>
>> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:55:50 +0100
>>
>>> I think there's a bug in net/ipv6/addrconf.c, addrconf_notify():
>>> addrconf_dad_run() is not always run when the interface is flagged IF_READY.
>>> Currently it is only run when receiving NETDEV_CHANGE event. Looks like
>>> some (virtual) devices doesn't send this event when becoming up.
>>>
>>> For both NETDEV_UP and NETDEV_CHANGE events, when the interface becomes
>>> ready, run_pending should be set to 1. Patch below.
>>>
>>> 'run_pending = 1' could be moved below the if/else block but it makes 
>>> the code less readable.

>> I wonder if we should instead make the virtual devices emit
>> the missing event?

I don't know. We'll have to identify all the devices that (mis)behave
like this.
Are all the devices supposed to emit both NETDEV_UP and NETDEV_CHANGE
when ifconfig/ip commands set the devices up?


But as you state below, it also looked more logical to me to run 
addrconf_dad_run() on every events that causes the interface to become
ready.

Benjamin

> 
> In any event, for the time being, I'm going to apply
> Benjamin's patch to fix this problem.
> 
> It makes the function in question logically consistent
> in that now everything that can cause IF_READY to become
> set will also cause run_pending work to run.

This is how

> 
> 


-- 
B e n j a m i n   T h e r y  - BULL/DT/Open Software R&D

    http://www.bull.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html