netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] can: skb:: move can_dropped_invalid_skb and can_skb_headroom

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: <20220517154301.5bf99ba9.max@enpas.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 15:43:01 +0200
From:   Max Staudt <max@...as.org>
To:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] can: skb:: move can_dropped_invalid_skb and
 can_skb_headroom_valid to skb.c

On Tue, 17 May 2022 15:35:03 +0200
Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net> wrote:

> Oh, I didn't want to introduce two new kernel modules but to have 
> can_dev in different 'feature levels'.

Which I agree is a nice idea, as long as heisenbugs can be avoided :)

(as for the separate modules vs. feature levels of can-dev - sorry, my
two paragraphs were each referring to a different idea. I mixed them
into one single email...)

Maybe the can-skb and rx-offload parts could be a *visible* sub-option
of can-dev in Kconfig, which is normally optional, but immediately
force-selected once a CAN HW driver is selected?

> But e.g. the people that are running Linux instances in a cloud only 
> using vcan and vxcan would not need to carry the entire
> infrastructure of CAN hardware support and rx-offload.

Out of curiosity, do you have an example use case for this vcan cloud
setup? I can't dream one up...

Max