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, 06 Mar 2020 21:13:20 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: do not enslave CAN devices

From: Marc Kleine-Budde <>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 15:12:48 +0100

> 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.

Like this:

if (netdev->ops != &can_netdev_ops)


Powered by blists - more mailing lists