From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: References: <1440600113-21305-1-git-send-email-sw@simonwunderlich.de> <1440600113-21305-3-git-send-email-sw@simonwunderlich.de> <55E5692D.8090909@meshcoding.com> <1647977.TX5clMHFCZ@prime> From: Antonio Quartulli Message-ID: <55E58C63.1090500@meshcoding.com> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:30:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1647977.TX5clMHFCZ@prime> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9elnV6Gp4epGnRhPR7lcDraGkrIHUxm3N" 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: Simon Wunderlich Cc: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking , alessandro@mediaspot.net This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --9elnV6Gp4epGnRhPR7lcDraGkrIHUxm3N Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 ent= ry >>> 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 th= e >>> purge function can not find this temporary entry anymore. >> >> When can this really happen? When a temporary client has roamed to a n= ew >> 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 AD= D >> event from the same originator where the temporary client was seen. >> >> Other than this, the patch looks good. >=20 > I've seen the problem in that problematic case which was fixed in PATCH= v1.=20 > Practically, it is unlikely to happen unless there is a malicious attac= ker or=20 > another bug like the one described earlier - that is, speedy join is tr= iggered=20 > without any actual TT update. >=20 > The main problem I've perceived here was that the TT entry got the temp= orary=20 > flag removed even if the original sender didn't supply a proper TT=20 > announcement yet. The reason for this was that it got a proper reply fr= om=20 > another orig node. >=20 > The roaming case you've described would also cause the temporary client= to be=20 > removed, but might be added later through a ''proper'' TT announcement.= >=20 > 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. I hope you think this is fine. Cheers, --=20 Antonio Quartulli --9elnV6Gp4epGnRhPR7lcDraGkrIHUxm3N Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJV5YxnAAoJEOb/4TMchkvfNNwQAJoB4JXVeODPYTx7+7Jxrrnp NQ87Kq6FL4grWggnmJ+kfJuG4ghC+AvEX+z6MJsFraTY1G5ZqhC3ZjGDriB/u4Ja Y7IWagyz4H4dPmXaIqxz8uZ6LFJPQctjA/iKgPYSuu05DCxpF1yv2uj5zG1Z3sRd TKQAsabUGfrTAnoIJZNDBj8kKoMLBaou3qNLcNYgPpMZ+5SlLoDG3omoEp15r+Zo Tj5qhcl1wNYF/670VWO7DoX57Wd+wJUJjtGZSwHVfKYnqFQ0KXlpuXdkwuX5dZkV xberJ/xP7Z3lV25qB6sdSxnvnPX8eEFo4mEX6mQhHoBiNBOEYQ5edZd9AblSMbKP TK5GQhiXMY3eKFe/neaq1OmZRLcwqudA8kxEagJ4cPSihpyj1hz+h8nfgaEr4O2i YTZf2CDlC2knjSwt+snLaXzXSRTyuXy21uH4r2dgl5QCsOFVVY2x88t3dVdRB7uD 2Iybh9ZQm8aejzf9kmgutJHjYdjATF2TqxjuK+/bCQRLYkXTrbN9P4mMBv6dMxuW uZToPBZNRXW9BUmXsHWO0uOLVu2v4kbvTmS1lYMB5Dz8EZvXFbce+XOSGqKELAlL 22r80ARrErOa5hqey3+2m+OY1cj+MU1VlmmWLwkLo43/c5S3bZFisWZNQlvFBleX tKUWYjMDUeT9hJNPDn+M =gkyA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9elnV6Gp4epGnRhPR7lcDraGkrIHUxm3N--