netdev - Re: What's a good default TTL for DNS keys in the kernel

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:   Mon, 20 Apr 2020 14:13:40 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Paulo Alcantara <pc@....nz>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
        linux-nfs <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
        ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, fweimer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: What's a good default TTL for DNS keys in the kernel

Paulo Alcantara <pc@....nz> wrote:

> >> For SMB3/CIFS mounts, Paulo added support last year for automatic
> >> reconnect if the IP address of the server changes.  It also is helpful
> >> when DFS (global name space) addresses change.
> >
> > What happens if the IP address the superblock is going to changes, then
> > another mount is made back to the original IP address?  Does the second mount
> > just pick the original superblock?
> 
> It is going to transparently reconnect to the new ip address, SMB share,
> and cifs superblock is kept unchanged.  We, however, update internal
> TCP_Server_Info structure to reflect new destination ip address.
> 
> For the second mount, since the hostname (extracted out of the UNC path
> at mount time) resolves to a new ip address and that address was saved earlier
> in TCP_Server_Info structure during reconnect, we will end up
> reusing same cifs superblock as per fs/cifs/connect.c:cifs_match_super().

Would that be a bug?

David