Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "YOSHIFUJI Hideaki/吉藤英明" <hideaki.yoshifuji@miraclelinux.com>
To: Chunhui He <hchunhui@mail.ustc.edu.cn>, ja@ssi.bg
Cc: hideaki.yoshifuji@miraclelinux.com, davem@davemloft.net,
	dsa@cumulusnetworks.com, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com,
	roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, rshearma@brocade.com,
	dbarroso@fastly.com, martinbj2008@gmail.com, rick.jones2@hp.com,
	koct9i@gmail.com, edumazet@google.com, tgraf@suug.ch,
	ebiederm@xmission.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: neigh: disallow state transition DELAY->STALE in neigh_update()
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:20:29 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e0d3e238-312e-a0e2-9501-29beb7e2ef27@miraclelinux.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160722.124757.283248020246505940.hchunhui@mail.ustc.edu.cn>

Hi,

Chunhui He wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:20:01 +0300 (EEST), Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg> wrote:
>>
>> 	Hello,
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, Chunhui He wrote:
>>
>>> If neigh entry was CONNECTED and address is not changed, and if new state is
>>> STALE, entry state will not change. Because DELAY is not in CONNECTED, it's
>>> possible to change state from DELAY to STALE.
>>>
>>> That is bad. Consider a host in IPv4 nerwork, a neigh entry in STALE state
>>> is referenced to send packets, so goes to DELAY state. If the entry is not
>>> confirmed by upper layer, it goes to PROBE state, and sends ARP request.
>>> The neigh host sends ARP reply, then the entry goes to REACHABLE state.
>>> But the entry state may be reseted to STALE by broadcast ARP packets, before
>>> the entry goes to PROBE state. So it's possible that the entry will never go
>>> to REACHABLE state, without external confirmation.
>>>
>>> In my case, the gateway refuses to send unicast packets to me, before it sees
>>> my ARP request. So it's critical to enter REACHABLE state by sending ARP
>>> request, but not by external confirmation.
>>>
>>> This fixes neigh_update() not to change to STALE if old state is CONNECTED or
>>> DELAY.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chunhui He <hchunhui@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
>>> ---
>>>  net/core/neighbour.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
>>> index 510cd62..29429eb 100644
>>> --- a/net/core/neighbour.c
>>> +++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
>>> @@ -1152,7 +1152,7 @@ int neigh_update(struct neighbour *neigh, const u8 *lladdr, u8 new,
>>>  		} else {
>>>  			if (lladdr == neigh->ha && new == NUD_STALE &&
>>>  			    ((flags & NEIGH_UPDATE_F_WEAK_OVERRIDE) ||
>>> -			     (old & NUD_CONNECTED))
>>> +			     (old & (NUD_CONNECTED | NUD_DELAY)))
>>>  			    )
>>>  				new = old;
>>>  		}
>>
>> 	You change looks correct to me. But this place
>> has more problems. There is no good reason to set NUD_STALE
>> for any state that is NUD_VALID if address is not changed.
>> This matches perfectly the comment above this code:
>> NUD_STALE should change a NUD_VALID state only when
>> address changes. It also means that IPv6 does not need
>> to provide NEIGH_UPDATE_F_WEAK_OVERRIDE anymore when
>> NEIGH_UPDATE_F_OVERRIDE is also present.
>>
> 
> The NEIGH_UPDATE_F_WEAK_OVERRIDE is confusing to me, so I choose not to deal
> with the flag.

IPv6 depends on WEAK_OVERRIDE.  Please do not change.

> 
>> 	By this way the state machine can continue with
>> the resolving: NUD_STALE -> NUD_DELAY (traffic) ->
>> NUD_PROBE (retries) -> NUD_REACHABLE (unicast reply)
>> while the address is not changed. Your change covers only
>> NUD_DELAY, not NUD_PROBE, so it is better to allow more
>> retries to send. We should not give up until success (NUD_REACHABLE).
>>
> 
> I have thought about this.
> The origin code allows NUD_DELAY -> NUD_STALE and NUD_PROBE -> NUD_STALE.
> This part was imported to kernel since v2.1.79, I don't know clearly why it
> allows that.
> 
> My analysis:
> (1) As shown in my previous mail, NUD_DELAY -> NUD_STALE may cause "dead loop",
> so it should be fixed.
> 
> (2) But NUD_PROBE -> NUD_STALE is acceptable, because in NUD_PROBE, ARP request
> has been sent, it is sufficient to break the "dead loop".
> More attempts are accomplished by the following sequence:
> NUD_STALE --> NUD_DELAY -(sent req)-> NUD_PROBE -(reset by neigh_update())->
> NUD_STALE --> NUD_DELAY -(send req again)-> ... -->
> NUD_REACHABLE
> 
> 
> But I also agree your change.
> 
>> 	Second problem: NEIGH_UPDATE_F_WEAK_OVERRIDE has no
>> priority over NEIGH_UPDATE_F_ADMIN. For example, now I can not
>> change from NUD_PERMANENT to NUD_STALE:
>>
>> # ip neigh add 192.168.168.111 lladdr 00:11:22:33:44:55 nud perm dev wlan0
>> # ip neigh show to 192.168.168.111
>> 192.168.168.111 dev wlan0 lladdr 00:11:22:33:44:55 PERMANENT
>> # ip neigh change 192.168.168.111 lladdr 00:11:22:33:44:55 nud stale dev wlan0
>> # ip neigh show to 192.168.168.111
>> 192.168.168.111 dev wlan0 lladdr 00:11:22:33:44:55 PERMANENT
>>
>> 	IMHO, here is how this place should look:
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
>> index 5cdc62a..2b1cb91 100644
>> --- a/net/core/neighbour.c
>> +++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
>> @@ -1151,10 +1151,8 @@ int neigh_update(struct neighbour *neigh, const u8 *lladdr, u8 new,
>>  				goto out;
>>  		} else {
>>  			if (lladdr == neigh->ha && new == NUD_STALE &&
>> -			    ((flags & NEIGH_UPDATE_F_WEAK_OVERRIDE) ||
>> -			     (old & NUD_CONNECTED))
>> -			    )
>> -				new = old;
>> +			    !(flags & NEIGH_UPDATE_F_ADMIN))
>> +				goto out;
>>  		}
>>  	}
>>
>> 	Any thoughts?
>>  
>> Regards
>>
>> --
>> Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
> 
> Regards,
> Chunhui He
> 

-- 
吉藤英明 <hideaki.yoshifuji@miraclelinux.com>
ミラクル・リナックス株式会社 技術本部 サポート部

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-07-25  5:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-07-21 17:58 [PATCH] net: neigh: disallow state transition DELAY->STALE in neigh_update() Chunhui He
2016-07-22  7:20 ` Julian Anastasov
2016-07-22  9:41   ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-07-22 12:47   ` Chunhui He
2016-07-23  6:17     ` Julian Anastasov
2016-07-23 11:24       ` Chunhui He
2016-07-23 14:09         ` Julian Anastasov
2016-07-23 16:52           ` Chunhui He
2016-07-23 19:09             ` Julian Anastasov
2016-07-25  7:52               ` Chunhui He
2016-07-25  5:20     ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki/吉藤英明 [this message]
2016-07-25  8:13       ` Chunhui He
2016-07-25 12:45         ` 吉藤英明
2016-07-25 18:57           ` Julian Anastasov

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=e0d3e238-312e-a0e2-9501-29beb7e2ef27@miraclelinux.com \
    --to=hideaki.yoshifuji@miraclelinux.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dbarroso@fastly.com \
    --cc=dsa@cumulusnetworks.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=hchunhui@mail.ustc.edu.cn \
    --cc=ja@ssi.bg \
    --cc=koct9i@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martinbj2008@gmail.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com \
    --cc=rick.jones2@hp.com \
    --cc=roopa@cumulusnetworks.com \
    --cc=rshearma@brocade.com \
    --cc=tgraf@suug.ch \
    --cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.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