netdev - Re: [PATCH] neighbour: update neigh timestamps iff update is effective

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: <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.