netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] Configure bridge FDB ageing time using netlink.

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: <CA+CtxLSNre0PSe6avkMsoLLsG53URz0ii1p9J_9XYrNP=6i9-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 15 Mar 2015 09:48:24 +0530
From:	Siva Mannem <siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com>
To:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
Cc:	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] Configure bridge FDB ageing time using netlink.

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Siva Mannem <siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Siva Mannem <siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> This patch allows user to configure bridge's FDB ageing using
>>>> netlink(for ex, iproute2). Allowed range is 10 seconds to 1000000 seconds
>>>> as per ieee8021QBridgeFdbAgingTime.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Siva Mannem <siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>  - Added commit message.
>>>>  - Fix style problems reported by checkpatch.pl.
>>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +int br_set_ageing_time(struct net_bridge *br, unsigned long val)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       unsigned long t = clock_t_to_jiffies(val);
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (t < BR_MIN_AGEING_TIME || t > BR_MAX_AGEING_TIME)
>>>> +               return -ERANGE;
>>>> +
>>>> +       spin_lock_bh(&br->lock);
>>>> +       br->ageing_time = t;
>>>
>>> I wonder if you need to call mod_timer(&br->gc_timer, jiffies) after
>>> adjusting the time, to make new ageing_time effective?  The worst-case
>>> scenario I'm thinking about is if the initial br->ageing_time is the
>>> max value (1000000 seconds) and the user changes it the min value (10
>>> seconds), will the original 1000000 seconds need to expire before the
>>> gc_timer is called again and reset to 10 seconds?
>>>
>> Yes, the new ageing_time becomes effective only after the current timer expires.
>> The behavior when ageing_time is set via netlink  is similar to setting it using
>> sysfs and brctl. I want to keep the behavior same when the ageing_time is
>> configured using any of the existing mechanisms.
>
> Right, looks like sysfs and brctl (ioctl) don't reset gc_timer, so
> you're consistent there.  :)
>
> Consistency is good.  What do you think about a new func that's called
> from either of the three interfaces (sysfs, ioctl, netlink) that:
>
> 1) validates range, like in your br_set_ageing_time() func.
> 2) reset gc_timer if setting ageing_time to lower value
>
> ?
Agree. I will work on it.


-- 
Regards,
Siva Mannem.
--
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