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  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:   Fri, 6 Mar 2020 15:12:48 +0100
From:   Marc Kleine-Budde <>
To:     David Miller <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: do not enslave CAN devices

On 3/2/20 8:12 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Oliver Hartkopp <>
> 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.

Sorry, I'm not really sure how to implement this check.

Should I maintain a list of all netdev_ops of all the CAN devices (=
whitelist) and the compare against that list? Having a global list of
pointers to network devices remind me of the old days of kernel-2.4.


Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Embedded Linux                   |  |
Vertretung West/Dortmund         | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

Powered by blists - more mailing lists