On 22.07.2016 09:20, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, Chunhui He wrote:
>
>> If neigh entry was CONNECTED and address is not changed, and if new state is
>> STALE, entry state will not change. Because DELAY is not in CONNECTED, it's
>> possible to change state from DELAY to STALE.
>>
>> That is bad. Consider a host in IPv4 nerwork, a neigh entry in STALE state
>> is referenced to send packets, so goes to DELAY state. If the entry is not
>> confirmed by upper layer, it goes to PROBE state, and sends ARP request.
>> The neigh host sends ARP reply, then the entry goes to REACHABLE state.
>> But the entry state may be reseted to STALE by broadcast ARP packets, before
>> the entry goes to PROBE state. So it's possible that the entry will never go
>> to REACHABLE state, without external confirmation.
>>
>> In my case, the gateway refuses to send unicast packets to me, before it sees
>> my ARP request. So it's critical to enter REACHABLE state by sending ARP
>> request, but not by external confirmation.
>>
>> This fixes neigh_update() not to change to STALE if old state is CONNECTED or
>> DELAY.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chunhui He <hchun...@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
>> ---
>> net/core/neighbour.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
>> index 510cd62..29429eb 100644
>> --- a/net/core/neighbour.c
>> +++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
>> @@ -1152,7 +1152,7 @@ int neigh_update(struct neighbour *neigh, const u8
>> *lladdr, u8 new,
>> } else {
>> if (lladdr == neigh->ha && new == NUD_STALE &&
>> ((flags & NEIGH_UPDATE_F_WEAK_OVERRIDE) ||
>> - (old & NUD_CONNECTED))
>> + (old & (NUD_CONNECTED | NUD_DELAY)))
>> )
>> new = old;
>> }
>
> You change looks correct to me. But this place
> has more problems. There is no good reason to set NUD_STALE
> for any state that is NUD_VALID if address is not changed.
> This matches perfectly the comment above this code:
> NUD_STALE should change a NUD_VALID state only when
> address changes. It also means that IPv6 does not need
> to provide NEIGH_UPDATE_F_WEAK_OVERRIDE anymore when
> NEIGH_UPDATE_F_OVERRIDE is also present.
>
> By this way the state machine can continue with
> the resolving: NUD_STALE -> NUD_DELAY (traffic) ->
> NUD_PROBE (retries) -> NUD_REACHABLE (unicast reply)
> while the address is not changed. Your change covers only
> NUD_DELAY, not NUD_PROBE, so it is better to allow more
> retries to send. We should not give up until success (NUD_REACHABLE).
>
> Second problem: NEIGH_UPDATE_F_WEAK_OVERRIDE has no
> priority over NEIGH_UPDATE_F_ADMIN. For example, now I can not
> change from NUD_PERMANENT to NUD_STALE:
>
> # ip neigh add 192.168.168.111 lladdr 00:11:22:33:44:55 nud perm dev wlan0
> # ip neigh show to 192.168.168.111
> 192.168.168.111 dev wlan0 lladdr 00:11:22:33:44:55 PERMANENT
> # ip neigh change 192.168.168.111 lladdr 00:11:22:33:44:55 nud stale dev wlan0
> # ip neigh show to 192.168.168.111
> 192.168.168.111 dev wlan0 lladdr 00:11:22:33:44:55 PERMANENT
>
> IMHO, here is how this place should look:
>
> diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
> index 5cdc62a..2b1cb91 100644
> --- a/net/core/neighbour.c
> +++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
> @@ -1151,10 +1151,8 @@ int neigh_update(struct neighbour *neigh, const u8
> *lladdr, u8 new,
> goto out;
> } else {
> if (lladdr == neigh->ha && new == NUD_STALE &&
> - ((flags & NEIGH_UPDATE_F_WEAK_OVERRIDE) ||
> - (old & NUD_CONNECTED))
> - )
> - new = old;
> + !(flags & NEIGH_UPDATE_F_ADMIN))
> + goto out;
> }
> }
>
> Any thoughts?
This change makes perfectly sense to me.
Reviewed-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <han...@stressinduktion.org>
Thanks,
Hannes
