On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 05:56:51PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Neil Horman 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 y
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Neil Horman 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
>> >> > addres
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 02:25:42PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > Sent: 02 September 2016 14:47
> ...
> > > Consider the following network:
> > >
> > > +---+--+-
> > > | | |
>
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> Sent: 02 September 2016 14:47
...
> > Consider the following network:
> >
> > +---+--+-
> > | | |
> > x.x.1.1 x.x.1.2y.y.1.2
> > 10.1.1.1
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 01:22:05PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Of Xin Long
> > Sent: 25 August 2016 05:04
> ...
> > But I still prefer the current patch.
> > 1. This issue only happens when server bind 'ANY' addresses.
> > we don't need to add any new members to struct sctp_sockaddr_entr
From: Of Xin Long
> Sent: 25 August 2016 05:04
...
> But I still prefer the current patch.
> 1. This issue only happens when server bind 'ANY' addresses.
> we don't need to add any new members to struct sctp_sockaddr_entry.
> especially if it's a really corner issue, we fix this as an impr
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:03:30PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > Or add a refcnt to its members.
> > NETDEV_UP, it gets a ++ if it's already there
> > NETDEV_DOWN, it gets a -- and cleans it up if it reaches 0
> > And the rest probably could stay the same.
> >
> Yes, it could also avoid the issue of
> Or add a refcnt to its members.
> NETDEV_UP, it gets a ++ if it's already there
> NETDEV_DOWN, it gets a -- and cleans it up if it reaches 0
> And the rest probably could stay the same.
>
Yes, it could also avoid the issue of amounts of duplicate addrs.
or add a nic index variable to its member
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:25:38AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 02:41:01PM +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
> >
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
>> > 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 w
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 02:41:01PM +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
> 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
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 07:30:22PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> From: Xin Long
>
> sctp.local_addr_list is a global address list that is supposed to include
> all the local addresses. sctp updates this list according to NETDEV_UP/
> NETDEV_DOWN notifications.
>
> However, if multiple NICs have the s
> Under what valid use case will multiple interfaces have the same network
> address?
>
Hi, Neil.
I'm not sure the specific valid use case.
The point is, do we trust the sctp global addr list has no duplicate
address ? In one of users' computer, he found hundreds of duplicate
addresses in INIT_ACK
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 07:30:22PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> From: Xin Long
>
> sctp.local_addr_list is a global address list that is supposed to include
> all the local addresses. sctp updates this list according to NETDEV_UP/
> NETDEV_DOWN notifications.
>
> However, if multiple NICs have the s
From: Xin Long
sctp.local_addr_list is a global address list that is supposed to include
all the local addresses. sctp updates this list according to NETDEV_UP/
NETDEV_DOWN notifications.
However, if multiple NICs have the same address, the global list will
have duplicate addresses. Even if for
17 matches
Mail list logo
