linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] fix statistics for CAN RTR and Error frames

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMZ6RqJ_Kj48Zuv=zzPawcQw4qkgxa=u9aHgH8Ggq9MQZosS_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:35:04 +0900
From:   Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] fix statistics for CAN RTR and Error frames

On Wed. 24 Nov. 2021 at 06:10, Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net> wrote:
> On 23.11.21 12:53, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> > There are two common errors which are made when reporting the CAN RX
> > statistics:
> >
> >    1. Incrementing the "normal" RX stats when receiving an Error
> >    frame. Error frames is an abstraction of Socket CAN and does not
> >    exist on the wire.
> >
> >    2. Counting the length of the Remote Transmission Frames (RTR). The
> >    length of an RTR frame is the length of the requested frame not the
> >    actual payload. In reality the payload of an RTR frame is always 0
> >    bytes long.
> >
> > This patch series fix those two issues for all CAN drivers.
> >
> > Vincent Mailhol (2):
> >    can: do not increase rx statistics when receiving CAN error frames
> >    can: do not increase rx_bytes statistics for RTR frames
>
> I would suggest to upstream this change without bringing it to older
> (stable) trees.
>
> It doesn't fix any substantial flaw which needs to be backported IMHO.

I fully agree. Bringing it to the stable trees would be a
considerable effort and was not my intent either (thus the
absence of "Fixes" tags).

> Btw. can you please change 'error frames' to 'error message frames'?
>
> We had a discussion some years ago that the 'error frames' are used as
> term inside the CAN protocol.

ACK. Thanks for the clarification on the vocabulary.

Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol