On 12/1/20 4:01 AM, Hoang Huu Le wrote:
From: Hoang Le <[email protected]>

We add the support to remove a specific node down with 128bit
node identifier, as an alternative to legacy 32-bit node address.

example:
$tipc peer remove identiy <1001002|16777777>

Signed-off-by: Hoang Le <[email protected]>
---
  net/tipc/node.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/tipc/node.c b/net/tipc/node.c
index cd67b7d5169f..a7479f68a146 100644
--- a/net/tipc/node.c
+++ b/net/tipc/node.c
@@ -2195,6 +2195,9 @@ int tipc_nl_peer_rm(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info 
*info)
        struct tipc_net *tn = net_generic(net, tipc_net_id);
        struct nlattr *attrs[TIPC_NLA_NET_MAX + 1];
        struct tipc_node *peer, *temp_node;
+       u8 node_id[NODE_ID_LEN];
+       u64 *w0 = (u64 *)&node_id[0];
+       u64 *w1 = (u64 *)&node_id[8];
        u32 addr;
        int err;
@@ -2208,10 +2211,22 @@ int tipc_nl_peer_rm(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
        if (err)
                return err;
- if (!attrs[TIPC_NLA_NET_ADDR])
-               return -EINVAL;
+       /* attrs[TIPC_NLA_NET_NODEID] and attrs[TIPC_NLA_NET_ADDR] are
+        * mutually exclusive case
s/case/cases
+        */
+       if (attrs[TIPC_NLA_NET_ADDR]) {
+               addr = nla_get_u32(attrs[TIPC_NLA_NET_ADDR]);
+               if (!addr)
+                       return -EINVAL;
+       }
- addr = nla_get_u32(attrs[TIPC_NLA_NET_ADDR]);
+       if (attrs[TIPC_NLA_NET_NODEID]) {
+               if (!attrs[TIPC_NLA_NET_NODEID_W1])
+                       return -EINVAL;
+               *w0 = nla_get_u64(attrs[TIPC_NLA_NET_NODEID]);
+               *w1 = nla_get_u64(attrs[TIPC_NLA_NET_NODEID_W1]);
+               addr = hash128to32(node_id);
+       }
if (in_own_node(net, addr))
                return -ENOTSUPP;
Acked-by: Jon Maloy <[email protected]>



_______________________________________________
tipc-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion

Reply via email to