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: 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists