Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: fix net.ipv6.conf.all interface DAD handlers

2017-09-28 Thread Erik Kline
On 28 September 2017 at 13:47, Erik Kline  wrote:
>> Erik, please review.
>
> I apologize for the delay. I see that you've already applied this, and
> it's mostly LGTM except I have one thing I'm not seeing clearly.
>
> The documentation accept_dad  now claims:
>
> DAD operation and mode on a given interface will be selected according
> to the maximum value of conf/{all,interface}/accept_dad.
>
> but I'm try to square this with my reading of the changes to
> addrconf_dad_begin().  I think setting all.accept_dad to 0 but
> ifname.accept_dad to non-0 still results in the short-circuit call to
> addrconf_dad_completed().
>
> Am I just not seeing (thinking) straight?

Upon further reflection, doesn't the whole premise of this change
means that it's no longer possible to selectively disable these
features if they are set on "all"?  Or are we saying that this mode is
only support with "default" enable + "ifname" disable?


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: fix net.ipv6.conf.all interface DAD handlers

2017-09-27 Thread Erik Kline
> Erik, please review.

I apologize for the delay. I see that you've already applied this, and
it's mostly LGTM except I have one thing I'm not seeing clearly.

The documentation accept_dad  now claims:

DAD operation and mode on a given interface will be selected according
to the maximum value of conf/{all,interface}/accept_dad.

but I'm try to square this with my reading of the changes to
addrconf_dad_begin().  I think setting all.accept_dad to 0 but
ifname.accept_dad to non-0 still results in the short-circuit call to
addrconf_dad_completed().

Am I just not seeing (thinking) straight?


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature