netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] can: fix multiple delivery of a single CAN frame for overlapping CAN filters

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:	Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:14:45 +0300
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] can: fix multiple delivery of a single CAN
 frame for overlapping CAN filters

Hello.

On 03/30/2015 06:49 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:

>>> +    /* eliminate multiple filter matches for the same skb */
>>> +    if (*this_cpu_ptr(ro->uniq_skb) == oskb &&
>>> +        ktime_equal(*this_cpu_ptr(ro->uniq_tstamp), oskb->tstamp)) {
>>> +            return;

>>     Over-indented.

> I was asked about that before. AFAIK the *skb is no unique identifier over a
> longer period of time. But together with the timestamp it becomes unique.
> Or do you have a better solution to detect identical skbs?

    I just said that *return* was too far to the right, that's all. :-)

> CAN skbs do not have a (rx)hash so far and I wonder if it's worth to compute
> the hash in favor to check the *skb and the timestamp here ...

[...]

> Best regards,
> Oliver

WBR, Sergei

--
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