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 identified an issue where a FAILED neighbor can retain an outdated 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.
