netdev - Re: [net-next 0/6] move CAN skb headroom content to skb extensions

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: <aXo4jP9M0EQPOaeI@strlen.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 17:25:48 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-can@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next 0/6] move CAN skb headroom content to skb extensions

Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net> wrote:
> Ok. But then I don't see any real pressure to do the extension right 
> now. There doesn't seem so much changes adding new skb extensions users. 
>   And we still have a free slot even if all users would have been 
> enabled (which is not the case due to the mutually exclusive options).

Yes.

> The good thing is that skb extensions are very efficient. Which leads to 
> the bad thing that we only can detect the problems at build time with
> 
> BUILD_BUG_ON(SKB_EXT_NUM > 8);
> BUILD_BUG_ON(skb_ext_total_length() > 255);
> 
> For (SKB_EXT_NUM > 8) the upgrade of active_extensions to u16 should 
> simply make it. Probably with some #ifdef magic only.
> 
> But thinking about BUILD_BUG_ON(skb_ext_total_length() > 255):
> 
> Shouldn't this be SKB_EXT_CHUNKSIZEOF(struct skb_ext) + sum of the skb 
> ext user data which can be up to 255 *  SKB_EXT_ALIGN_VALUE (= 2040) ???

Why?  Its not about the size in bytes, its there to make sure
ext->offset[] (u8) won't overflow for any of the extensions.

Maybe a comment would help.