netdev - Re: [can-next 0/5] can: remove private skb headroom infrastructure

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: <20260117091543.7881db1a@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2026 09:15:43 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org, Marc
 Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, Vincent Mailhol <mailhol@...nel.org>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Simon Horman
 <horms@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [can-next 0/5] can: remove private skb headroom infrastructure

On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 11:31:14 +0100 Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Long story short: Using the common pattern to wrap a union around 
> dual-usable skb space is the most efficient and least risky solution IMHO.

The concern is that we're making a precedent for, let's call it -
not-routable-networking technology to redefine fields in skb that
it doesn't need. From the maintainability perspective that's a big
risk, IMHO. I fully acknowledge tho that using md dst will be a lot
more work. Which makes this situation an unpleasant judgment call :(