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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 06:26:09 +0200 From: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de> To: Devid Antonio Filoni <devid.filoni@...uetechnologies.com>, Robin van der Gracht <robin@...tonic.nl>, kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-can@...r.kernel.org, Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>, Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Maxime Jayat <maxime.jayat@...ile-devices.fr>, kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] can: j1939: do not wait 250ms if the same addr was already claimed Hi, On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 09:04:06PM +0200, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > On ma, 09 mei 2022 19:03:03 +0200, Devid Antonio Filoni wrote: > > This is not explicitly stated in SAE J1939-21 and some tools used for > > ISO-11783 certification do not expect this wait. It will be interesting to know which certification tool do not expect it and what explanation is used if it fails? > IMHO, the current behaviour is not explicitely stated, but nor is the opposite. > And if I'm not mistaken, this introduces a 250msec delay. > > 1. If you want to avoid the 250msec gap, you should avoid to contest the same address. > > 2. It's a balance between predictability and flexibility, but if you try to accomplish both, > as your patch suggests, there is slight time-window until the current owner responds, > in which it may be confusing which node has the address. It depends on how much history > you have collected on the bus. > > I'm sure that this problem decreases with increasing processing power on the nodes, > but bigger internal queues also increase this window. > > It would certainly help if you describe how the current implementation fails. > > Would decreasing the dead time to 50msec help in such case. > > Kind regards, > Kurt > -- 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 |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists