netdev - Re: [PATCH 5/7] CAN: Add virtual CAN netdevice driver

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:	Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:26:48 +0200
From:	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver@...tkopp.net>
To:	Urs Thuermann <urs@...ogud.escape.de>
CC:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp@...kswagen.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] CAN: Add virtual CAN netdevice driver

Urs Thuermann wrote:
> Now I think we should consider removing the loopback code from
> can_send() and demand from each CAN driver that it *has to* implement
> this itself.
>   

I also thought about this solution, which would remove the 'loopback'
parameter in vcan.c and some loopback code in can_send().

My only concern was, that this would break with standard netdev
behaviour just to send and receive data to/from the medium.
To break with the standard behaviour might be ok here as the PF_CAN only
deals with CAN netdevs (ARPHRD_CAN) which can be seen as some closed
eco-system. But i don't know what should happen, if someone in the
future gets the idea to route CAN-frames over ethernet devices for any
reason? In this case we would have to touch every driver we'd like to
support.

IMO it makes more sense to let the 9 lines of loopback fallback code in
can_send() than to remove it.

Oliver

-
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