netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: do not enslave CAN devices

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: <20200302.111249.471862054833131096.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Mon, 02 Mar 2020 11:12:49 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     socketcan@...tkopp.net
Cc:     mkl@...gutronix.de, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+c3ea30e1e2485573f953@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        dvyukov@...gle.com, j.vosburgh@...il.com, vfalico@...il.com,
        andy@...yhouse.net, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: do not enslave CAN devices

From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 09:45:41 +0100

> I don't know yet whether it makes sense to have CAN bonding/team
> devices. But if so we would need some more investigation. For now
> disabling CAN interfaces for bonding/team devices seems to be
> reasonable.

Every single interesting device that falls into a special use case
like CAN is going to be tempted to add a similar check.

I don't want to set this precedence.

Check that the devices you get passed are actually CAN devices, it's
easy, just compare the netdev_ops and make sure they equal the CAN
ones.