netdev - Re: [net 3/3] can: isotp: add SF_BROADCAST support for functional addressing

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 5 Dec 2020 12:33:00 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, Thomas Wagner <thwa1@....de>
Subject: Re: [net 3/3] can: isotp: add SF_BROADCAST support for functional
 addressing

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 21:24:42 +0100 Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 12/5/20 12:26 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> > On 05.12.20 04:44, Jakub Kicinski wrote:  
> >> On Fri,  4 Dec 2020 14:35:08 +0100 Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:  
> >>> From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
> >>>
> >>> When CAN_ISOTP_SF_BROADCAST is set in the CAN_ISOTP_OPTS flags the CAN_ISOTP
> >>> socket is switched into functional addressing mode, where only single frame
> >>> (SF) protocol data units can be send on the specified CAN interface and the
> >>> given tp.tx_id after bind().
> >>>
> >>> In opposite to normal and extended addressing this socket does not register a
> >>> CAN-ID for reception which would be needed for a 1-to-1 ISOTP connection with a
> >>> segmented bi-directional data transfer.
> >>>
> >>> Sending SFs on this socket is therefore a TX-only 'broadcast' operation.  
> >>
> >> Unclear from this patch what is getting fixed. Looks a little bit like
> >> a feature which could be added in a backward compatible way, no?
> >> Is it only added for completeness of the ISOTP implementation?
> >>  
> > 
> > Yes, the latter.
> > 
> > It's a very small and simple tested addition and I hope it can still go 
> > into the initial upstream process.  
> 
> What about the (incremental?) change that Thomas Wagner posted?
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201204135557.55599-1-thwa1@web.de

That settles it :) This change needs to got into -next and 5.11.