netdev - Re: [PATCH net] bridge: fix hello and hold timers starting/stopping

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:   Fri, 19 May 2017 09:38:16 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Ivan Vecera <cera@...a.cz>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        sashok@...ulusnetworks.com, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        lucien.xin@...il.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bridge: fix hello and hold timers starting/stopping

On Fri, 19 May 2017 18:25:43 +0200
Ivan Vecera <cera@...a.cz> wrote:

> Current bridge code incorrectly handles starting/stopping of hello and
> hold timers during STP enable/disable.
> 
> 1. Timers are stopped in br_stp_start() during NO_STP->USER_STP
>    transition. This is not correct as the timers are stopped in NO_STP
>    case.
> 
> 2. Timers are started in br_stp_stop() during USER_STP->NO_STP transition.
>    This is not also correct as the timers should be stopped in NO_STP
>    state.
> 
> 3. Timers are NOT stopped in br_stp_stop() during KERNEL_STP->NO_STP
>    transition. They should be stopped as they are running in KERNEL_STP
>    state and should not run in NO_STP case.
> 
> The patch is a follow-up for "bridge: start hello_timer when enabling
> KERNEL_STP in br_stp_start" patch from Xin Long.
> 
> Cc: davem@...emloft.net
> Cc: sashok@...ulusnetworks.com
> Cc: stephen@...workplumber.org
> Cc: bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: lucien.xin@...il.com
> Cc: nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Vecera <cera@...a.cz>

Overall, this looks correct but the wording of commit message
is too terse.

It would be better to add a more complete description of the impact
of this from a user's point of view. I am concerned that this
might have other side effects.

For example, what is the sequence of commands to validated this.

What is the impact, should this go to stable?