public inbox for b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Antonio Quartulli <a@unstable.cc>
To: Sven Eckelmann <sven@narfation.org>
Cc: Jetmir Gigollai <jetmir_gigollaj@web.de>,
	The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
	<b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [RFC] batman-adv: Remove recursive bat-on-bat netdevice check
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:39:07 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <569D85AB.9080403@unstable.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1447443981-28246-1-git-send-email-sven@narfation.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1553 bytes --]

Hi Sven and thanks for this RFC. Sorry for taking soo long to comment.



On 14/11/15 03:46, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> batman-adv checks in different situation if a new device is already on top
> of a different batman-adv device. This is done by getting the iflink of a
> device and all its parent. It assumes that this iflink is always a parent
> device in an acyclic graph. But this assumption is broken by devices like
> veth which are actually a pair of two devices linked to each other. The
> recursive check would therefore get veth0 when calling dev_get_iflink on
> veth1. And it gets veth0 when calling dev_get_iflink with veth1.
> 

I agree that this check implemented this way represents a problem.
However I also believe that we should still have some kind of prevention
against this particular scenario (chain of batman interfaces), because
if ignored it could lead to troubles.

Unfortunately I don't know how to implement this check in an elegant and
extendible manner.

First of all we should add a check that follows the master interface,
but at the same time we should still follow the iflink, otherwise we
can't check relationships like VLAN_DEV->REAL_DEV. But how to implement
the latter without hitting the cyclic case is not clear to me ..

An option is to add a specific check for veth and break the recursion,
but this is not really nice, because the next time a cyclic interface
type will be introduced our check will become troublesome again.

Suggestions?


Cheers,

-- 
Antonio Quartulli


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-19  0:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-13 19:46 [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [RFC] batman-adv: Remove recursive bat-on-bat netdevice check Sven Eckelmann
2016-01-19  0:39 ` Antonio Quartulli [this message]
2016-01-19  1:22   ` Andrew Lunn
2016-01-19 12:34     ` Antonio Quartulli
2016-01-19 14:40       ` Andrew Lunn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=569D85AB.9080403@unstable.cc \
    --to=a@unstable.cc \
    --cc=b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org \
    --cc=jetmir_gigollaj@web.de \
    --cc=sven@narfation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox