Re: [PATCH net] rtnetlink: ndo_dflt_fdb_del() never works

[Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@redhat.com>]

On 05/31/2013 12:43 PM, Alan Robertson wrote:
> On 05/31/2013 02:46 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Alan Robertson <alanr@unix.sh>
>> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:01:55 -0600
>>
>>> ndo_dflt_fdb_del is checking for a condition which is opposite that
>>> which ndo_dflt_fdb_add enforces.  ndo_dflt_fdb_add declares an error
>>> if (ndm->ndm_state && !(ndm->ndm_state) & NUD_PERMANENT)) - that is, if the
>>> entry is static.  This is consistent with the failure error message.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, ndo_dflt_del() declares an error
>>> if (ndm_state & NUD_PERMANENT) - which is inconsistent with the add
>>> precondition, and inconsistent with its failure message text.
>>> As it is now, you can't delete any entry which add allows to be added -
>>> so entry deletion always fails.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alan Robertson <alanr@unix.sh>
>> What about the ->ndm_state part of the add() test?  Why not include
>> that in the del() check?
> I had three different thoughts about this:
>    1) Replicated the add check in the delete
>    2) Do what I did - make it where you can only delete those really
> marked as static
>    3) Eliminate all delete checks
>
> The problem is -- I'm not sure why the ndm->ndm_state check is in there
> -- I don't know how to make that condition occur.  It has the feel of a
> check to be made before things are fully initialized - or maybe even
> just leftover cruft.
>

The test  is there to support simultaneous master and self operations. 
The operation on a master may not always require a NUD_PERMANENT state 
(ex: bridge) and we don't want to perform self operations in that instance.

> You could make the argument that option (3) is the best -- if it's been
> added successfully, you ought to be able to delete it.

Hmm..  _del() always deletes and flags/states don't matter much 
generally.  I agree that the check isn't really needed as it isn't 
really protecting anything.

-vlad

>
> If someone with more knowledge would comment that would be much appreciated!
>
> I'm happy to submit any of these three versions of the patch.  Let me
> know what's wanted.
>
>