From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: do not enslave CAN devices Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 21:13:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20200306.211320.1410615421373955488.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20200302.111249.471862054833131096.davem@davemloft.net> <03ff979e-a621-c9a3-9be3-13677c147f91@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.9]:40714 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725263AbgCGFNi (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2020 00:13:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <03ff979e-a621-c9a3-9be3-13677c147f91@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: mkl@pengutronix.de Cc: socketcan@hartkopp.net, 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 From: Marc Kleine-Budde Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 15:12:48 +0100 > On 3/2/20 8:12 PM, David Miller wrote: >> 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. > > Sorry, I'm not really sure how to implement this check. Like this: if (netdev->ops != &can_netdev_ops) return; Done.