On 01/23/2013 10:39 PM, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
ipv4_is_zeronet() checks if the first byte of the address is zero, to my knowledge there is no special funtion for checking for the unspecified address, as the case is trivial and independent of byte ordering.
It might make sense though to check for different types of addresses that are invalid for ARP (zeronet, loopback, multicast, etc.), but I wanted to keep the patch as simple as possible. If you think these should be filtered as well, I'll prepare a v2.
Oh, I shouldn't top post. Well, continuing here now...
I just noticed that batadv_arp_get_type() already checks for loopback and multicast addresses, so adding ipv4_is_zeronet() should be enough. I'd keep that in batadv_dat_entry_add() though as the source of ARP replies with 0.0.0.0 destination is still valid and can be should to the DAT.
On 01/23/2013 10:07 PM, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 06:11:54 +0100, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
Due to duplicate address detection and other strange ARP packets, sometimes entries with broadcast MAC addresses or unspecified IP addresses would get into the Distributed ARP Table. This patch prevents these and some other kinds of invalid entries from getting into the DAT.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer firstname.lastname@example.org
distributed-arp-table.c | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/distributed-arp-table.c b/distributed-arp-table.c index 9f4cff3..e28be57 100644 --- a/distributed-arp-table.c +++ b/distributed-arp-table.c @@ -274,6 +274,18 @@ static void batadv_dat_entry_add(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, __be32 ip, struct batadv_dat_entry *dat_entry; int hash_added;
- /* filter invalid MAC addresses that are sometimes used as
* destinations of ARP replies
- if (is_zero_ether_addr(mac_addr) || is_multicast_ether_addr(mac_addr))
- /* ARP requests with unspecified source address are used for
* duplicate address detection, we don't want those in the DAT either
- if (!ip)
Hi Matthias, what about using ipv4_is_zeronet() ? Even if this is a base case, I would rather prefer to use an already implemented function.