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]

Date:   Tue, 16 May 2017 01:27:52 +0300 (EEST)
From:   Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
To:     Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrachys@...hat.com>
cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        He Chunhui <hchunhui@...l.ustc.edu.cn>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] neighbour: update neigh timestamps iff update is
 effective


	Hello,

On Mon, 15 May 2017, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:

> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg> wrote:
> >
> >         It seems arp_accept value currently has influence on
> > the locktime for GARP requests. My understanding is that
> > locktime is used to ignore replies from proxy_arp
> > routers while the requested IP is present on the LAN
> > and replies immediately. IMHO, GARP requests should not
> > depend on locktime, even when arp_accept=0. For example:
> 
> Yes, I believe so.
> 
> I actually thought about introducing the patch that does just that:
> forcing override on garp, but then I was thinking, maybe there is some
> reason to still apply locktime rules to garps; f.e. if you have
> multiple nodes carrying the ip address and located on the same
> segment, maybe you want to pick the first that replies to you (in
> theory, it may be the node that is less loaded, or closer to us; but
> then, it's so fragile even if that was the intent...) Do you want me
> to post the patch, or will you cover it?

	Feel free to post a patch for this, I see that you change
in another patch the is_garp value, so it seems the same logic
should be used twice.

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>