Received: by 2002:a25:8b12:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i18csp360479ybl; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 01:53:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzYbKNhOaTIWZumFyNUyh/jWTZmkLRQntI8OOsE9XufW+35LJxvq2RI/sSiyT67Em8Il/YH X-Received: by 2002:a63:c009:: with SMTP id h9mr2985157pgg.166.1566550421572; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 01:53:41 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1566550421; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=O4BjizuH1Tp9RysG2NQeK1cJ85hEw26HrCYJ+j532MQlTpQ+LDf+wSytcO/zp3DRqS 6KWi0hwh9I6bnPS9Ue4qmE6YbNEiBc/6Hupa16WoXugVI41ngAJZ1Z5JOYY2dcEWKG+3 1wVAtHJVSDVWJTEdFxfxNXbL3eSxY0Va/KRIwFqUCgttoQfBabYmbzLcIfvDdw9Z+t2u 4lUk2/7jSBmtHsaIrLdpia+fZ4hgWfSDt2EvSZwFyrst+/Uuo5QvlKWheYSIlTBO8VGY tm6qd0EzBGcp5fGGoKjLnd67k8dgQ4sTSmaUOnCoQxq0O3Hljpi04t8pszAWQX3cs2NK ke1g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:subject:cc:to:message-id:date; bh=RooTHjEOiipDG+fuXep7neYsR8bbnvyQDptU/+g+3v4=; b=SJPjFfWhlztFlyaao1lfEULJJuistSTrOjZ+YE1y2jxjTVSnLBNPBRj1HAwsUqie+S hNS1NhD5H1B01kpqPpzSsTK5ru2lacG+g1dgPVS+rN9GQbwMnve8fy63bpua1B282txS 691hlsPL3NVQVun/YOLCs9kKwQnZDupAyeGcqXyUXsmWSBDbPLOm0d8redqnl2ej9GVU 9KfDh9b/bKljqymRS1VZZEnE9nx/7EB+wik4fSpcn+eNV9ctZDHN0nKkFfMP6JPKrEx8 UxPvlQMsWKJ0EuSFaj9XxrgMkZ5vvpMhLehjeO7MxHOw+UYqXr3gQZZ12gJ7Gf6caVwy uaTA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a26si1460589pgb.276.2019.08.23.01.53.24; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 01:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2405449AbfHVW5n (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:57:43 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.9]:50114 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2405430AbfHVW5n (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:57:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:601:9f80:35cd::d71]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: davem-davemloft) by shards.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A12AB153952E3; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20190822.155742.2103304070969355809.davem@davemloft.net> To: liudongxu3@huawei.com Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Add the same IP detection for duplicate address. From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20190821032000.10540-1-liudongxu3@huawei.com> References: <20190821032000.10540-1-liudongxu3@huawei.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Dongxu Liu Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 11:20:00 +0800 > The network sends an ARP REQUEST packet to determine > whether there is a host with the same IP. > Windows and some other hosts may send the source IP > address instead of 0. > When IN_DEV_ORCONF(in_dev, DROP_GRATUITOUS_ARP) is enable, > the REQUEST will be dropped. > When IN_DEV_ORCONF(in_dev, DROP_GRATUITOUS_ARP) is disable, > The case should be added to the IP conflict handling process. > > Signed-off-by: Dongxu Liu Even documents like RFC 5227 talk about there being a zero source protocol address here (read the last two paragraphis of section 1.2. "relationship to 826"): ==================== An ARP Probe with an all-zero 'sender IP address' may ostensibly be merely asking an innocent question ("Is anyone using this address?"), but an intelligent implementation that knows how IPv4 Address Conflict Detection works should be able to recognize this question as the precursor to claiming the address. ==================== I do not understand why we have to add a special case for an implementation that has decided, after so many decades of our existing behavior, to put something of than zero in the source protocol address. I'm not applying this, I do not see a legitimate justification for this change at all. Sorry.