From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Sven Eckelmann Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 19:02:40 +0200 Message-ID: <44905128.CbDZRqSBqu@sven-edge> In-Reply-To: <20180510152752.2557-1-mareklindner@neomailbox.ch> References: <20180510152752.2557-1-mareklindner@neomailbox.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart381516546.hc3ZE7W9pX"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [RFC maint] batman-adv: fix adding VLANs with partial state List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org Cc: Marek Lindner , me@irrelefant.net --nextPart381516546.hc3ZE7W9pX Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2018 17:27:52 CEST Marek Lindner wrote: > Amongst other things, the MAC address of > the VLAN interface itself has to be stored. > > Without this change a VLAN and its infrastructure could be created > while the interface MAC address is not stored without triggering > any error, thus creating issues in other parts of the code. Actually, the call to batadv_tt_local_add is using the address from the softif and not from the vlan interface. Just some remark because it let me think about the way the "-1" no-VLAN is added. I would really like to know what exactly failed here. Does Leonardo's system really try to add the VLAN 0 before it is storing the info for the no-vlan (-1/BATADV_NO_FLAGS) and the mac address is "invalid" for VLAN 0? Or maybe both failed and he is just lucky that he got some non-permanent entries for this device on the non-vlan "vlan" - I am not sure about that. On Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2018 18:24:50 CEST Antonio Quartulli wrote: > A failure of this function will cause a failure of the > ndo_vlan_rx_add_vid() call made by the kernel/netlink API which in turns > will reach the userspace. > > Ideally any userspace application that attempted to create the VLAN > should be in charge of re-attempting the creation again (I believe). > > About your point 4, this should not be possible, because in case of > error the bat0.X interface won't be created by the kernel at all. no? Yes, this seems to be true for batadv_interface_add_vid. Still an open question for the batadv_hard_if_event (which cannot return an error to the caller). Would be interesting to know whether Leonardo's node fails for both calls or only for one (see above). Kind regards, Sven --nextPart381516546.hc3ZE7W9pX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEF10rh2Elc9zjMuACXYcKB8Eme0YFAlr0ezAACgkQXYcKB8Em e0bPHw//XdI25MIWoavBEigjeYArftLEZWHFRnYoexso+5yjx8VkPrX0S2vdgSXA N2u1ZhBgu6CrA9JQJJ6u/FJ3q0qdA2fs5eSPS9J78Qdb0VUSrC5A4VE/W7yI1D0x dH0mnkTWctDaZkg0sVQ7QztR2AW4k17v7nNZYsOsPoh8uvSQE8gUo9JaTktUYnZT 8d7bFmZwmyopPbTjTkUxk5wwYhcqk8B8JvkwBbI6ARo2uXzsnLjK+DyZlptamF+J HK+urchBoB+7WoaBpEUZgVxeYbDTpSDT8uBwRM5JomrLupixjUIIy/kxGdHSO9cG a42ELyvthaTNTYWhEXc18SmuDs6ilRsQ8yKlNtqIf0kmVz/gTzMMg7PFlpeDuf8L dKMVxwSHjXDfHV21VqaIfNt0+jZyjZl9yY1uzbQsSFzE9FRo2JMGX0sMnfYq3ZO+ +Ok6qPX8XCwXuASLzS/UEI7fb4o6UCGaSkrobUQjJqsWKZwvK9b0Kajsnzf1se6F 3VJXfRiGNf9tSb5abi0Ho6xxqNdMqXGs0NCRk1CXZmbgSBBW7s0rr7rQNstVW+4K c1XcbVFA7WSLQxgYU4T7+vtpAVWU22NBOsQvWS382n2p4hw/wUUCopW8CenvSRpp LjrrPDDh7VZqdZkQrWrpF9oVV+FHPm2Fu+iY9+GROPOwIWKj4HM= =B+Iq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart381516546.hc3ZE7W9pX--