linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] can: skb:: move can_dropped_invalid_skb and can_skb_headroom

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]

Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 08:08:21 +0200
From:   Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To:     Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
Cc:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Max Staudt <max@...as.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 17.05.2022 10:50:16, Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
> > would it probably make sense to
> > introduce a new can-skb module that could be used by all CAN
> > virtual/software interfaces?
> >
> > Or some other split-up ... any idea?
> 
> My concern is: what would be the merrit? If we do not split, the users
> of slcan and v(x)can would have to load the can-dev module which will
> be slightly bloated for their use, but is this really an issue?

If you use modprobe all required modules are loaded automatically.

> I do
> not see how this can become a performance bottleneck, so what is the
> problem?
> I could also argue that most of the devices do not depend on
> rx-offload.o. So should we also split this one out of can-dev on the
> same basis and add another module dependency?

We can add a non user visible Kconfig symbol for rx-offload and let the
drivers that need it do a "select" on it. If selected the rx-offload
would be compiled into to can-dev module.

> The benefit (not having to load a bloated module for three drivers)
> does not outweigh the added complexity: all hardware modules will have
> one additional modprobe dependency on the tiny can-skb module.
>
> But as said above, I am not fully opposed to the split, I am just
> strongly divided. If we go for the split, creating a can-skb module is
> the natural and only option I see.
> If the above argument does not convince you, I will send a v3 with that split.

regards,
Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de  |
Vertretung West/Dortmund         | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)