netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/7] can: add drop reasons in the receive path of AF

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aElrBfTYkepfUxD-@dcaratti.users.ipa.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 13:39:49 +0200
From: Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/7] can: add drop reasons in the receive path
 of AF_CAN

On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 03:50:39PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 11:46:21 +0200 Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> > Besides the existing pr_warn_once(), use skb drop reasons in case AF_CAN
> > layer drops non-conformant CAN{,FD,XL} frames, or conformant frames
> > received by "wrong" devices, so that it's possible to debug (and count)
> > such events using existing tracepoints:
> 
> Hm, I wonder if the protocol is really the most useful way 
> to categorize. Does it actually help to identify problems on
> production systems?
> 
> AFAIU we try to categorize by drop condition. So given the condition
> is:
> 
> 	if (unlikely(dev->type != ARPHRD_CAN || !can_get_ml_priv(dev) || !can_is_canfd_skb(skb))) 
> 
> my intuition would be to split this into two: "not a CAN device" and
> "invalid CAN frame". 

hello,

yes, that makes sense: I will post a follow-up patch soon.

thanks,
-- 
davide