[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090807114625.GA6838@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:46:25 +0200
From: Luotao Fu <l.fu@...gutronix.de>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc: R?mi Denis-Courmont <remi.denis-courmont@...ia.com>,
Luotao Fu <l.fu@...gutronix.de>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"socketcan-users@...ts.berlios.de" <socketcan-users@...ts.berlios.de>,
Michael Olbrich <m.olbrich@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Socketcan-users] [PATCH] CAN: make checking in can_rcv less
restrictive
Hi Oliver,
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 01:35:26PM +0200, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> R?mi Denis-Courmont wrote:
....
>
> @Luotao: I talked to Urs and we discussed to prepare a patch that only creates
> a warning and drops the skb afterwards, as the problem is not critical for a
> proper ongoing kernel operation. I think, that was you original intention:
>
> if (!net_eq(dev_net(dev), &init_net) ||
> WARN_ON(dev->type != ARPHRD_CAN) ||
> WARN_ON(skb->len != sizeof(struct can_frame) || cf->can_dlc > 8)) {
> kfree_skb(skb);
> return NET_RX_BAD;
> }
>
> Would this be ok for you?
I'm absolutely fine with this.
thx
cheers
Fu
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Dipl.-Ing. Luotao Fu |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists