[PATCH] mka: Some bug fixes

[Badrish Adiga H R]

Hi Jouni,

Thanks for your reply..
Actually, I am using a patch which allows to configure MKA actor
priority. I have submitted that patch also to hostap's mailing list.
The test scenario is this. I have 2 peers running MACsec in PSK mode,
Peer A with MAC address higher than MAC Address of peer B.
1. Peer B starts with actor_priority 255
2. Peer A starts with priority 16, becomes key server.
3. Peer A stops..
4. Peer A restarts with priority 255, but because of the stale values
participant->is_key_server(=TRUE) and participant->is_elected(=TRUE)
it continues to remain as Key Server.
5. For peer B, key server election happens and since it has lower MAC
address as compared to MAC address of A, it becomes the key server.

Now we have 2 key servers in CA and is not correct.

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Jouni Malinen <j at w1.fi> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:56:23PM +0530, Badrish Adiga H R wrote:
>> 1. API ieee802_1x_mka_decode_dist_sak_body wrongly puts
>> participant->to_use_sak to TRUE, if invalid DIstributed SAK Parameter
>> Set is received
>> 2. when number of live peers become 0, the flags such lrx, ltx, orx,
>> otx etc. needs to be cleared. In MACsec PSK mode, these stale values
>> create problems, while re-establishing CA...
>
> These sound completely independent changes and as such, should be split
> into two separate patches. As far as (1) is concerned, I'm not sure I
> followed the previous thread regarding the change. So this does not
> actually fix any observable behavior? It would be good for the commit
> message to be clear on why this change is needed and what impact it has
> on behavior.
>
> For (2), could you please be more specific on "create problems"? I.e.,
> describe what those problems are and how one would notice that in
> practice (i.e., what kind of incorrect behavior this fixes)?
>
> --
> Jouni Malinen                                            PGP id EFC895FA