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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 16:35:05 +0200 From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net> To: Max Staudt <max@...as.org> Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] can: skb:: move can_dropped_invalid_skb and can_skb_headroom_valid to skb.c On 17.05.22 15:43, Max Staudt wrote: > On Tue, 17 May 2022 15:35:03 +0200 > Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net> wrote: > >> Oh, I didn't want to introduce two new kernel modules but to have >> can_dev in different 'feature levels'. > > Which I agree is a nice idea, as long as heisenbugs can be avoided :) > > (as for the separate modules vs. feature levels of can-dev - sorry, my > two paragraphs were each referring to a different idea. I mixed them > into one single email...) > > > Maybe the can-skb and rx-offload parts could be a *visible* sub-option > of can-dev in Kconfig, which is normally optional, but immediately > force-selected once a CAN HW driver is selected? I think it should be even more simple. When you enter the current Kconfig page of "CAN Device Drivers" every selection of vcan/vxcan/slcan should directly select CAN_DEV_SW. The rest could stay the same, e.g. selecting CAN_DEV "Platform CAN drivers with Netlink support" which then enables CAN_CALC_BITTIMING and CAN_LEDS to be selectable. Which also makes sure the old .config files still apply. And finally the selection of flexcan, ti_hecc and mcp251xfd automatically selects CAN_DEV_RX_OFFLOAD. Then only some more Makefile magic has to be done to build can-dev.ko accordingly. Best regards, Oliver > > >> But e.g. the people that are running Linux instances in a cloud only >> using vcan and vxcan would not need to carry the entire >> infrastructure of CAN hardware support and rx-offload. > > Out of curiosity, do you have an example use case for this vcan cloud > setup? I can't dream one up... > > > > Max
Powered by blists - more mailing lists