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: <20200313095610.x3iorvdotry54vb4@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:56:10 +0100
From:   Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
To:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 11:25:50AM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 3/7/20 6:13 AM, David Miller wrote:
> > 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;
> 
> There is no single can_netdev_ops. The netdev_ops are per CAN-network
> driver. But the ml_priv is used in the generic CAN code.

ping,

are there any other ways or ideas how to solve this issue?

Regards,
Oleksij

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)