From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Simon Wunderlich Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 19:35:26 +0200 Message-ID: <51474855.ZTugXQXYdU@prime> In-Reply-To: <55E58C63.1090500@meshcoding.com> References: <1440600113-21305-1-git-send-email-sw@simonwunderlich.de> <1647977.TX5clMHFCZ@prime> <55E58C63.1090500@meshcoding.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3984137.phoqO871aG"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH-maintv2 2/3] batman-adv: avoid keeping false temporary entry List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Antonio Quartulli Cc: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking , alessandro@mediaspot.net --nextPart3984137.phoqO871aG Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" On Tuesday 01 September 2015 13:30:43 Antonio Quartulli wrote: > On 01/09/15 13:00, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > > On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:00:29 Antonio Quartulli wrote: > >> On 26/08/15 16:41, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > >>> In the case when a temporary entry is added first and a proper tt entry > >>> is added after that, the temporary tt entry is kept in the orig list. > >>> However the temporary flag is removed at this point, and therefore the > >>> purge function can not find this temporary entry anymore. > >> > >> When can this really happen? When a temporary client has roamed to a new > >> originator before it could be claimed by the first one ? Or are there > >> other cases ? I think it is important to make this clear, because the > >> original logic was such as the expected behaviour was to receive an ADD > >> event from the same originator where the temporary client was seen. > >> > >> Other than this, the patch looks good. > > > > I've seen the problem in that problematic case which was fixed in PATCHv1. > > Practically, it is unlikely to happen unless there is a malicious attacker > > or another bug like the one described earlier - that is, speedy join is > > triggered without any actual TT update. > > > > The main problem I've perceived here was that the TT entry got the > > temporary flag removed even if the original sender didn't supply a proper > > TT announcement yet. The reason for this was that it got a proper reply > > from another orig node. > > > > The roaming case you've described would also cause the temporary client to > > be removed, but might be added later through a ''proper'' TT > > announcement. > > > > Do you think I should include any of this in the commit message? > > I think you should mention something that makes this case "real": I'd > just say that it is possible that a client detected behind a given > originator moves before an actual claim is made, so triggering this > particular configuration. Sounds good, I'll extend the commit message. Thanks! Simon --nextPart3984137.phoqO871aG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEABECAAYFAlXnM2EACgkQrzg/fFk7axYyewCfSoWWOxRINOzS0KLTzQhBPwOj SJsAoIcLJFg4KwL3qcae1CPltOZ+3mhD =Iz6g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3984137.phoqO871aG--