netdev - Re: [patch 0/7] CAN: Add new PF_CAN protocol family, try #3

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: <467BF796.9080900@trash.net>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:23:50 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver@...tkopp.net>
CC:	Urs Thuermann <urs@...ogud.escape.de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp@...kswagen.de>,
	Urs Thuermann <urs.thuermann@...kswagen.de>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, j.hadi123@...il.com
Subject: Re: [patch 0/7] CAN: Add new PF_CAN protocol family, try #3

Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>   
>> Urs Thuermann wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> * Use skb->iif instead of skb->cb to pass receiving interface from
>>>   raw_rcv() and bcm_rcv() up to raw_recvmsg() and bcm_recvmsg().
>>>     
>>>       
>> skb->iif doesn't necessarily point to the incoming network device
>> as seen seen by netif_receive_skb, for layered devices it currently
>> always points to the first interface that received a packet.
>>   
>>     
>
> This is exactly the intention.
>
>   
>> Its so far also only used for traffic classification, please explain
>> how you're using it and what values it is set to on which paths.
>>   
>>     
>
> As you might have seen in Documentation/networking/can.txt (hint, hint,
> hint!) the CAN has no routing, no ARP, no MAC adressing and is a
> broadcast only medium. So if there is (at least) any reasonable
> addressing on CAN it consists of the CAN-frame's "CAN-Identifier" and
> the CAN-bus this CAN-frame is sent/received on.
>
> For this reason the information about the interface the CAN-frame has
> been received on has to be made available to the user-application if it
> needs this information. Until your hint about our skb->cb missusage, we
> (successfully) transported this information inside skb->cb to
> socket-level. But indeed skb->iif is the better (and in our opinion the
> right) place to transport this information inside the skb to the
> socket-level.
>   

Lets hear Jamal's opinion on this, to be honest I never understood
how exactly it is supposed to be used.

> In both cases (receiving real CAN-frames from the CAN-netdev /
> performing the loopback of CAN-frames) we set skb->iif to zero to let
> netif_receive_skb() set the iif-value to the current skb->dev index. So
> skb->iif is set to the first interface the CAN-frame is received on,
> which is what we need & intended here.
>
> Is it the right approach to let netif_receive_skb() set the iif-value or
> should we better set this value on our own before invoking netif_rx()?
>   

netif_receive_skb is meant to be used as a default, the driver can
override this if it makes sense. If you touch it anyway you might
as well set it to the final value.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html