netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: send arp requests even if there's no route to them

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

Message-ID: <20140228112840.GA11907@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:28:40 +0100
From:	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	François CACHEREUL <f.cachereul@...halink.fr>,
	Zhenjie Chen <zhchen@...hat.com>,
	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: send arp requests even if there's no
 route to them

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 03:12:51AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 11:57 +0100, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
...snip...
>> +			if (bond->params.arp_validate)
>> +				pr_warn("%s: no route to arp_ip_target %pI4 and arp_validate is set\n",
>> +					bond->dev->name, &targets[i]);
>
>Maybe
>
>			if (bond->params.arp_validate && net_ratelimit())

Hm, not that I'm against it - but bond_arp_send_all() is called every
arp_interval - which is usually >50ms. Does it really make sense to put it
here?

Thanks for a quick review!

>
>
--
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