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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20170515.131023.1878814687849300375.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 13:10:23 -0400 (EDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: ihrachys@...hat.com Cc: ja@....bg, hchunhui@...l.ustc.edu.cn, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] neighbour: update neigh timestamps iff update is effective From: Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrachys@...hat.com> Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 17:06:05 -0700 > Sometimes neigh_update calls won't touch neither lladdr nor state, for > example if an update arrives in locktime interval. Then we effectively > ignore the update request, bailing out of touching the neigh entry, > except that we still bump its timestamps. So, in order to understand this, one has to know that the ->updated value is tested by the protocol specific neigh code, which in turn will thus influence whether NEIGH_UPDATE_F_OVERRIDE gets set in the call to neigh_update() or not. Please update your commit message to explain that this is how the locktime mechanism influences neigh_update()'s behavior. Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists