Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] ipv6: update NUD_FAILED neighbors from NA messages

["Lawrence Lee" <lfqlee314@gmail.com>]

On Thu Sep 17, 2026 at 2:37 PM UTC, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 05:43:11PM +0000, Lawrence Lee wrote:
> > I added the lowpan changes after my local Sashiko review run 
> > identified an issue where a FAILED neighbor can retain an outdated 
> > private short address if it's moved to STALE by a non-override NA. 
> > Happy to drop all lowpan-related changes or update comments/commit 
> > message to reflect the changes, please let me know your preference.
>
> And if the entry is INCOMPLETE and we get a non-override NA?
> lowpan_ndisc_update() will ignore it. It's a pre-existing issue and
> there is a TODO comment about this:
>
> "/* react on overrides only. TODO check if this is really right. */"
>
> You can mention that it's a pre-existing issue under the '---'. That
> way, hopefully, Sashiko will not flag it and it won't clutter the git
> log.
>
> > This was added in response to another Sashiko local review finding.  
> > Let's say we have some FAILED neighbor T with NTF_ROUTER set. If we 
> > get an NA from source address S with target address T and with the 
> > Router bit clear, existing kernel code will cleanup routes with 
> > gateway S, but IMO we should clean routes with gateway T instead 
> > since that is the neighbor which was updated by the NA. I can either 
> > update comments/commit message to reflect this or remove the change 
> > entirely, please let me know your preference.
>
> And if the neighbour was in a different state than FAILED? It seems like
> another pre-existing issue. I guess that in practice, most of the time,
> the source address of the NA is also the target address in the payload.
> You can mention this under the '---'.

I will remove both of these changes, add comments below the '---' as 
suggested, and resubmit.