That's perfect, thank you.
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:42:35AM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > Thanks for the review. > > I added to the commented re-posted to the previous thread mention of > unexpected MAID and unexpected MPID. I also moved it out of the inner > if statement so it applies to the whole block. > > /* According to the 802.1ag specification, reception of a CCM with an > * incorrect ccm_interval, unexpected MAID, or unexpected MPID should > * trigger a fault. We ignore this requirement for several reasons. > * > * Faults can cause a controller or Open vSwitch to make potentially > * expensive changes to the network topology. It seems prudent to trigger > * them judiciously, especially when CFM is used to check slave status of > * bonds. Furthermore, faults can be maliciously triggered by crafting > * invalid CCMs. */ > > Ethan > > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:16, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 02:44:11PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > >> According to the 802.1ag specification, reception of a CCM from an > >> unexpected source should trigger a fault. This patch causes the CFM > >> module to simply warn instead. ?There are several reasons for this > >> change outlined below. > >> > >> ? - Faults can cause controllers to make potentially expensive > >> ? ? changes to the network topology. > >> ? - Faults can be maliciously triggered by crafting invalid CCMs. > >> ? - With this patch, cfm->fault and rmp->fault are only updated in > >> ? ? cfm_run() making the code easier to debug and reason about. > > > > This seems reasonable to me. > > > > It might be a good idea to document these design decisions in the > > code. > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
