lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH net] net/ipv6: Change accept_unsolicited_na to accept_untracked_na
From
On 5/27/22 14:31, Arun Ajith S wrote:
> This change expands the current implementation to match the RFC. The
> sysctl knob is also renamed to accept_untracked_na to better reflect the
> implementation.
>

Say in imperative, "Expand and rename accept_unsolicited na to
accept_untracked_na" in both commit/patch subject and message.

> -accept_unsolicited_na - BOOLEAN
> +accept_untracked_na - BOOLEAN
> Add a new neighbour cache entry in STALE state for routers on receiving an
> - unsolicited neighbour advertisement with target link-layer address option
> - specified. This is as per router-side behavior documented in RFC9131.
> - This has lower precedence than drop_unsolicited_na.
> + neighbour advertisement with target link-layer address option specified
> + if a corresponding entry is not already present.
> + This is as per router-side behavior documented in RFC9131.
>
> - ==== ====== ====== ==============================================
> - drop accept fwding behaviour
> - ---- ------ ------ ----------------------------------------------
> - 1 X X Drop NA packet and don't pass up the stack
> - 0 0 X Pass NA packet up the stack, don't update NC
> - 0 1 0 Pass NA packet up the stack, don't update NC
> - 0 1 1 Pass NA packet up the stack, and add a STALE
> - NC entry
> - ==== ====== ====== ==============================================
> + This has lower precedence than drop_unsolicited_na.
>

I think you should have made similar logical expansion of drop_unsolicited_na to
drop_untracked_na. Otherwise, ...

> /* RFC 9131 updates original Neighbour Discovery RFC 4861.
> - * An unsolicited NA can now create a neighbour cache entry
> - * on routers if it has Target LL Address option.
> + * NAs with Target LL Address option without a corresponding
> + * entry in the neighbour cache can now create a STALE neighbour
> + * cache entry on routers.
> *
> - * drop accept fwding behaviour
> - * ---- ------ ------ ----------------------------------------------
> - * 1 X X Drop NA packet and don't pass up the stack
> - * 0 0 X Pass NA packet up the stack, don't update NC
> - * 0 1 0 Pass NA packet up the stack, don't update NC
> - * 0 1 1 Pass NA packet up the stack, and add a STALE
> - * NC entry
> - * Note that we don't do a (daddr == all-routers-mcast) check.
> + * entry accept fwding solicited behaviour
> + * ------- ------ ------ --------- ----------------------
> + * present X X 0 Set state to STALE
> + * present X X 1 Set state to REACHABLE
> + * absent 0 X X Do nothing
> + * absent 1 0 X Do nothing
> + * absent 1 1 X Add a new STALE entry
> */

The Documentation/ diff above drops behavior table but in the code comment
it is updated. Why didn't update in Documentation/ instead?

And my nitpick: for consistency, prefer en-US words over en-UK or mixed
varieties when writing (s/behaviour/behavior/gc, s/neighbour/neighbor/gc).

--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-27 11:30    [W:0.059 / U:0.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site