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: <20200306.211320.1410615421373955488.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Fri, 06 Mar 2020 21:13:20 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     mkl@...gutronix.de
Cc:     socketcan@...tkopp.net, 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: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 15:12:48 +0100

> On 3/2/20 8:12 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Sorry, I'm not really sure how to implement this check.

Like this:

if (netdev->ops != &can_netdev_ops)
	return;

Done.