[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150910091904.GA22575@bistromath.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:19:04 +0200
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
吉藤英明 <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Revert "net/ipv6: add sysctl option
accept_ra_min_hop_limit"
Hello,
2015-09-10, 10:54:38 +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > Can we still modify the behavior of this sysctl? It's already been in
> > Linus's tree for a while, but if we can, I would rather restrict the
> > values we let the user write to accept_ra_min_hop_limit, as anything
> > outside [0..255] does not really make sense.
>
> Yes, so the checked if (in6_dev->cnf.accept_ra_min_hop_limit < 256 &&
> ra_msg->icmph.icmp6_hop_limit) make sure we only update the value between
> [1..255].
I was thinking of returning -EINVAL when the user tries to set it to
300, using proc_dointvec_minmax.
> > Allowing an RA to update the hop limit if
> >
> > current hop limit < RA.hop_limit < accept_ra_min_hop_limit
> >
> > might also be desirable, but I'm not so sure about this case.
>
> Yes, and we also should allow an RA to update the hop limit if
>
> accept_ra_min_hop_limit <= RA.hop_limit < current hop limit
>
> e.g accept_ra_min_hop_limit = RA.hop_limit =64, current hop limit = 128
Yes, that's what we're doing at the moment, and I would leave it as is.
Thanks,
--
Sabrina
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists