From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: do not enslave CAN devices Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 11:12:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20200302.111249.471862054833131096.davem@davemloft.net> References: <767580d8-1c93-907b-609c-4c1c049b7c42@pengutronix.de> <20200226.202326.295871777946911500.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: socketcan@hartkopp.net Cc: mkl@pengutronix.de, linux-can@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, syzbot+c3ea30e1e2485573f953@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, dvyukov@google.com, j.vosburgh@gmail.com, vfalico@gmail.com, andy@greyhouse.net, stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-can.vger.kernel.org From: Oliver Hartkopp Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 09:45:41 +0100 > I don't know yet whether it makes sense to have CAN bonding/team > devices. But if so we would need some more investigation. For now > disabling CAN interfaces for bonding/team devices seems to be > reasonable. Every single interesting device that falls into a special use case like CAN is going to be tempted to add a similar check. I don't want to set this precedence. Check that the devices you get passed are actually CAN devices, it's easy, just compare the netdev_ops and make sure they equal the CAN ones.