On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 05:56:51PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:14:27PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > >> >> > Ah, I see what you're doing. Ok, this makes some sense, at least on > >> >> > the receive > >> >> > side, when you get a cookie unpacked and modify the remote peers > >> >> > address list, > >> >> > it makes sense to check for duplicates. On the local side however, I > >> >> > would, > >> >> > instead of checking it when the list gets copied, I'd check it when > >> >> > the master > >> >> > list gets updated (in the NETDEV_UP event notifier for the local > >> >> > address list, > >> >> > >> >> I was thinking about to check it in the NETDEV_UP, yes it can make the > >> >> master list has no duplicated addresses. But what if two same addresses > >> >> events come, and they come from different NICs (though I can't point > >> >> out > >> >> the valid use case), then we filter there. > >> >> > >> > That I think would be a bug in the protocol code. For the ipv4 case, all > >> > addresses are owned by the system and the same addresses added to > >> > multiple > >> > interfaces should not be allowed. The same is true of ipv6 case. The > >> > only > >> > exception there is a link local address and that should still be unique > >> > within > >> > the context of an address/dev tuple. > >> > > >> understand, just sounds a little harsh. :-) > >> > >> For now, does it make sense to you to just leave as the master list > >> is, and check > >> the duplicate address when sctp is really binding them ? > >> > > I would think so, yes. > > Hi, Neil, > > About this patch, I think we are on the page, right ? > Yes, I think we are. Neil
> If yes, I will repost v2, but other than improving some changelog, > no other change compare to v1. Do you agree ? >
