From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53440 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725898AbeL2H1S (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Dec 2018 02:27:18 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] net: lorawan: Add LoRaWAN socket module References: <20181216101858.9585-2-starnight@g.ncu.edu.tw> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=c3=a4rber?= Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 08:27:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181216101858.9585-2-starnight@g.ncu.edu.tw> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-wpan-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jian-Hong Pan Cc: "David S . Miller" , Alan Cox , linux-lpwan@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marcel Holtmann , Dollar Chen , Ken Yu , linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org, Ben Whitten Hi Jian-Hong, Am 16.12.18 um 11:18 schrieb Jian-Hong Pan: > This patch adds a new address/protocol family for LoRaWAN network. > It also implements the the functions and maps to Datagram socket for > LoRaWAN unconfirmed data messages. > > Signed-off-by: Jian-Hong Pan [...] > include/linux/lora/lorawan_netdev.h | 52 +++ > net/lorawan/Kconfig | 10 + > net/lorawan/Makefile | 2 + > net/lorawan/socket.c | 686 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 750 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 include/linux/lora/lorawan_netdev.h > create mode 100644 net/lorawan/Kconfig > create mode 100644 net/lorawan/Makefile > create mode 100644 net/lorawan/socket.c I'm not 100% happy with this yet, but to decouple it from the soft-MAC discussion (patches 2-6/6) and to allow reuse by Ben, I've staged it in linux-lora.git. We can clean it up with incremental patches there (and squash later). > > diff --git a/include/linux/lora/lorawan_netdev.h b/include/linux/lora/lorawan_netdev.h > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..5bffb5164f95 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/include/linux/lora/lorawan_netdev.h > @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-3-Clause */ Is there any practical reason you dual-license your code? My LoRa code is only GPL - should I reconsider that? > +/*- I assume the dash is a typo? > + * LoRaWAN stack related definitions > + * > + * Copyright (c) 2018 Jian-Hong, Pan > + * Leftover white line from old license header? > + */ > + > +#ifndef __LORAWAN_NET_DEVICE_H__ > +#define __LORAWAN_NET_DEVICE_H__ > + > +enum { > + LRW_ADDR_APPEUI, > + LRW_ADDR_DEVEUI, > + LRW_ADDR_DEVADDR, > +}; > + > +struct lrw_addr_in { > + int addr_type; > + union { > + u64 app_eui; > + u64 dev_eui; In my RFC and in linux-lora.git I have a lora_eui typedef - any reason you're not using it here? > + u32 devaddr; > + }; > +}; > + > +struct sockaddr_lorawan { > + sa_family_t family; /* AF_LORAWAN */ > + struct lrw_addr_in addr_in; > +}; > + > +/** > + * lrw_mac_cb - This structure holds the control buffer (cb) of sk_buff > + * > + * @devaddr: the LoRaWAN device address of this LoRaWAN hardware > + */ > +struct lrw_mac_cb { > + u32 devaddr; > +}; > + > +/** > + * lrw_get_mac_cb - Get the LoRaWAN MAC control buffer of the sk_buff > + * @skb: the exchanging sk_buff > + * > + * Return: the pointer of LoRaWAN MAC control buffer > + */ > +static inline struct lrw_mac_cb *lrw_get_mac_cb(struct sk_buff *skb) > +{ > + return (struct lrw_mac_cb *)skb->cb; > +} For LoRa I have a separate lora/skb.h - suggest to split this off into its own header consistently. > + > +#endif > diff --git a/net/lorawan/Kconfig b/net/lorawan/Kconfig > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..bf6c9b77573b > --- /dev/null > +++ b/net/lorawan/Kconfig > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ > +config LORAWAN > + tristate "LoRaWAN Network support" The N in LoRaWAN is already for Network. :) > + help > + LoRaWAN defines low data rate, low power and long range wireless > + wide area networks. It was designed to organize networks of automation > + devices, such as sensors, switches and actuators. It can operate > + multiple kilometers wide. The missing information here to distinguish it from LoRa would be that it's a client/server technology centered around gateways. In particular gateways that anyone can run, distinguishing it from (Sigfox or) NB-IoT. > + > + Say Y here to compile LoRaWAN support into the kernel or say M to > + compile it as a module. > diff --git a/net/lorawan/Makefile b/net/lorawan/Makefile > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..8c923ca6541a > --- /dev/null > +++ b/net/lorawan/Makefile > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > +obj-$(CONFIG_LORAWAN) += lorawan.o > +lorawan-objs := socket.o Both Kconfig and Makefile are not integrated into net/ here. That happens only in 6/6. > diff --git a/net/lorawan/socket.c b/net/lorawan/socket.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..7ef106b877ca > --- /dev/null > +++ b/net/lorawan/socket.c > @@ -0,0 +1,686 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-3-Clause > +/*- ? > + * LoRaWAN stack related definitions > + * > + * Copyright (c) 2018 Jian-Hong, Pan > + * ? > + */ > + > +#define LORAWAN_MODULE_NAME "lorawan" > + > +#define pr_fmt(fmt) LORAWAN_MODULE_NAME ": " fmt > + > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include /* For TIOCOUTQ/INQ */ > +#include > +#include Please sort headers alphabetically. > + > +/** > + * dgram_sock - This structure holds the states of Datagram socket > + * > + * @sk: network layer representation of the socket > + * sk must be the first member of dgram_sock Might that sentence be more useful as inline comment below? > + * @src_devaddr: the LoRaWAN device address for this connection > + * @bound: this socket is bound or not > + * @connected: this socket is connected to the destination or not > + * @want_ack: this socket needs to ack for the connection or not Doesn't exist below? > + */ > +struct dgram_sock { > + struct sock sk; > + u32 src_devaddr; > + > + u8 bound:1; > + u8 connected:1; > +}; > + > +static HLIST_HEAD(dgram_head); > +static DEFINE_RWLOCK(dgram_lock); > + > +static struct dgram_sock * > +dgram_sk(const struct sock *sk) > +{ > + return container_of(sk, struct dgram_sock, sk); > +} > + > +static struct net_device * > +lrw_get_dev_by_addr(struct net *net, u32 devaddr) > +{ > + __be32 be_addr = cpu_to_be32(devaddr); > + struct net_device *ndev = NULL; > + > + rcu_read_lock(); > + ndev = dev_getbyhwaddr_rcu(net, ARPHRD_LORAWAN, (char *)&be_addr); > + if (ndev) > + dev_hold(ndev); > + rcu_read_unlock(); > + > + return ndev; > +} > + > +static int > +dgram_init(struct sock *sk) > +{ > + return 0; > +} > + > +static void > +dgram_close(struct sock *sk, long timeout) > +{ > + sk_common_release(sk); > +} > + > +static int > +dgram_bind(struct sock *sk, struct sockaddr *uaddr, int len) > +{ > + struct sockaddr_lorawan *addr = (struct sockaddr_lorawan *)uaddr; > + struct dgram_sock *ro = dgram_sk(sk); > + struct net_device *ndev; > + int ret; > + > + lock_sock(sk); > + ro->bound = 0; > + > + ret = -EINVAL; > + if (len < sizeof(*addr)) > + goto dgram_bind_end; > + > + if (addr->family != AF_LORAWAN) > + goto dgram_bind_end; > + > + if (addr->addr_in.addr_type != LRW_ADDR_DEVADDR) > + goto dgram_bind_end; > + > + pr_debug("%s: bind address %X\n", __func__, addr->addr_in.devaddr); > + ndev = lrw_get_dev_by_addr(sock_net(sk), addr->addr_in.devaddr); > + if (!ndev) { > + ret = -ENODEV; > + goto dgram_bind_end; > + } > + netdev_dbg(ndev, "%s: get ndev\n", __func__); > + > + if (ndev->type != ARPHRD_LORAWAN) { > + ret = -ENODEV; > + goto dgram_bind_end; This is leaking ndev. > + } > + > + ro->src_devaddr = addr->addr_in.devaddr; > + ro->bound = 1; > + ret = 0; > + dev_put(ndev); > + pr_debug("%s: bound address %X\n", __func__, ro->src_devaddr); > + > +dgram_bind_end: > + release_sock(sk); > + return ret; > +} > + > +static int > +lrw_dev_hard_header(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *ndev, > + const u32 src_devaddr, size_t len) > +{ > + /* TODO: Prepare the LoRaWAN sending header here */ I wonder, is your idea that you would always write headers here but have me ignore them in hard-MAC drivers by accessing data and not head? I.e., does this dgram (and a later seqpacket) implementation give us not just the buffer to pass to hard-MAC or soft-MAC but actually LoRa, too, so that maclorawan needs to further post-processing of header/checksum? > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int > +dgram_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size) > +{ > + struct dgram_sock *ro = dgram_sk(sk); > + struct net_device *ndev; > + struct sk_buff *skb; > + size_t hlen; > + size_t tlen; > + int ret; > + > + pr_debug("%s: going to send %zu bytes", __func__, size); \n > + if (msg->msg_flags & MSG_OOB) { > + pr_debug("msg->msg_flags = 0x%x\n", msg->msg_flags); > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + } > + > + pr_debug("%s: check msg_name\n", __func__); > + if (!ro->connected && !msg->msg_name) > + return -EDESTADDRREQ; > + else if (ro->connected && msg->msg_name) > + return -EISCONN; > + > + pr_debug("%s: check bound\n", __func__); > + if (!ro->bound) > + ndev = dev_getfirstbyhwtype(sock_net(sk), ARPHRD_LORAWAN); > + else > + ndev = lrw_get_dev_by_addr(sock_net(sk), ro->src_devaddr); > + > + if (!ndev) { > + pr_debug("no dev\n"); > + ret = -ENXIO; > + goto dgram_sendmsg_end; > + } > + > + if (size > ndev->mtu) { > + netdev_dbg(ndev, "size = %zu, mtu = %u\n", size, ndev->mtu); > + ret = -EMSGSIZE; > + goto dgram_sendmsg_end; Leaks at least ndev from lrw_get_dev_by_addr. > + } > + > + netdev_dbg(ndev, "%s: create skb\n", __func__); > + hlen = LL_RESERVED_SPACE(ndev); > + tlen = ndev->needed_tailroom; > + skb = sock_alloc_send_skb(sk, hlen + tlen + size, > + msg->msg_flags & MSG_DONTWAIT, > + &ret); > + > + if (!skb) > + goto dgram_sendmsg_no_skb; > + > + skb_reserve(skb, hlen); > + skb_reset_network_header(skb); > + > + ret = lrw_dev_hard_header(skb, ndev, 0, size); > + if (ret < 0) > + goto dgram_sendmsg_no_skb; > + > + ret = memcpy_from_msg(skb_put(skb, size), msg, size); > + if (ret > 0) > + goto dgram_sendmsg_err_skb; > + > + skb->dev = ndev; > + skb->protocol = htons(ETH_P_LORAWAN); > + > + netdev_dbg(ndev, "%s: push skb to xmit queue\n", __func__); > + ret = dev_queue_xmit(skb); > + if (ret > 0) > + ret = net_xmit_errno(ret); > + netdev_dbg(ndev, "%s: pushed skb to xmit queue with ret=%d\n", > + __func__, ret); > + dev_put(ndev); > + > + return ret ?: size; > + > +dgram_sendmsg_err_skb: > + kfree_skb(skb); > +dgram_sendmsg_no_skb: > + dev_put(ndev); > + > +dgram_sendmsg_end: > + return ret; > +} > + > +static int > +dgram_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len, > + int noblock, int flags, int *addr_len) > +{ > + DECLARE_SOCKADDR(struct sockaddr_lorawan *, saddr, msg->msg_name); > + struct sk_buff *skb; > + size_t copied = 0; > + int err; > + > + skb = skb_recv_datagram(sk, flags, noblock, &err); > + if (!skb) > + goto dgram_recvmsg_end; > + > + copied = skb->len; > + if (len < copied) { > + msg->msg_flags |= MSG_TRUNC; > + copied = len; > + } > + > + err = skb_copy_datagram_msg(skb, 0, msg, copied); > + if (err) > + goto dgram_recvmsg_done; > + > + sock_recv_ts_and_drops(msg, sk, skb); > + if (saddr) { > + memset(saddr, 0, sizeof(*saddr)); > + saddr->family = AF_LORAWAN; > + saddr->addr_in.devaddr = lrw_get_mac_cb(skb)->devaddr; > + *addr_len = sizeof(*saddr); > + } > + > + if (flags & MSG_TRUNC) > + copied = skb->len; > + > +dgram_recvmsg_done: > + skb_free_datagram(sk, skb); > + > +dgram_recvmsg_end: > + if (err) > + return err; > + return copied; > +} > + > +static int > +dgram_hash(struct sock *sk) > +{ > + pr_debug("%s\n", __func__); > + write_lock_bh(&dgram_lock); > + sk_add_node(sk, &dgram_head); > + sock_prot_inuse_add(sock_net(sk), sk->sk_prot, 1); > + write_unlock_bh(&dgram_lock); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static void > +dgram_unhash(struct sock *sk) > +{ > + pr_debug("%s\n", __func__); > + write_lock_bh(&dgram_lock); > + if (sk_del_node_init(sk)) > + sock_prot_inuse_add(sock_net(sk), sk->sk_prot, -1); > + write_unlock_bh(&dgram_lock); > +} > + > +static int > +dgram_connect(struct sock *sk, struct sockaddr *uaddr, int len) > +{ > + struct dgram_sock *ro = dgram_sk(sk); > + > + /* Nodes of LoRaWAN send data to a gateway only, then data is received > + * and transferred to servers with the gateway's policy. > + * So, the destination address is not used by nodes. > + */ > + lock_sock(sk); > + ro->connected = 1; > + release_sock(sk); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int > +dgram_disconnect(struct sock *sk, int flags) > +{ > + struct dgram_sock *ro = dgram_sk(sk); > + > + lock_sock(sk); > + ro->connected = 0; > + release_sock(sk); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int > +dgram_ioctl(struct sock *sk, int cmd, unsigned long arg) > +{ > + struct net_device *ndev = sk->sk_dst_cache->dev; > + struct sk_buff *skb; > + int amount; > + int err; > + > + netdev_dbg(ndev, "%s: ioctl file (cmd=0x%X)\n", __func__, cmd); > + switch (cmd) { > + case SIOCOUTQ: > + amount = sk_wmem_alloc_get(sk); > + err = put_user(amount, (int __user *)arg); > + break; > + case SIOCINQ: > + amount = 0; > + spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock); > + skb = skb_peek(&sk->sk_receive_queue); > + if (skb) { > + /* We will only return the amount of this packet > + * since that is all that will be read. > + */ > + amount = skb->len; > + } > + spin_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock); > + err = put_user(amount, (int __user *)arg); > + break; > + default: > + err = -ENOIOCTLCMD; > + } > + > + return err; > +} > + > +static int > +dgram_getsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname, > + char __user *optval, int __user *optlen) > +{ > + int val, len; > + > + if (level != SOL_LORAWAN) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > + if (get_user(len, optlen)) > + return -EFAULT; > + > + len = min_t(unsigned int, len, sizeof(int)); > + > + switch (optname) { > + default: > + return -ENOPROTOOPT; > + } > + > + if (put_user(len, optlen)) > + return -EFAULT; > + > + if (copy_to_user(optval, &val, len)) > + return -EFAULT; > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int > +dgram_setsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level, int optname, > + char __user *optval, unsigned int optlen) > +{ > + int val; > + int err; > + > + err = 0; > + > + if (optlen < sizeof(int)) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + if (get_user(val, (int __user *)optval)) > + return -EFAULT; > + > + lock_sock(sk); > + > + switch (optname) { > + default: > + err = -ENOPROTOOPT; > + break; > + } > + > + release_sock(sk); > + > + return err; > +} > + > +static struct proto lrw_dgram_prot = { > + .name = "LoRaWAN", > + .owner = THIS_MODULE, > + .obj_size = sizeof(struct dgram_sock), > + .init = dgram_init, > + .close = dgram_close, > + .bind = dgram_bind, > + .sendmsg = dgram_sendmsg, > + .recvmsg = dgram_recvmsg, > + .hash = dgram_hash, > + .unhash = dgram_unhash, > + .connect = dgram_connect, > + .disconnect = dgram_disconnect, > + .ioctl = dgram_ioctl, > + .getsockopt = dgram_getsockopt, > + .setsockopt = dgram_setsockopt, > +}; > + > +static int > +lrw_sock_release(struct socket *sock) > +{ > + struct sock *sk = sock->sk; > + > + if (sk) { > + sock->sk = NULL; > + sk->sk_prot->close(sk, 0); > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int > +lrw_sock_bind(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr *uaddr, int addr_len) > +{ > + struct sockaddr_lorawan *addr = (struct sockaddr_lorawan *)uaddr; > + struct sock *sk = sock->sk; > + > + pr_debug("%s: bind address %X\n", __func__, addr->addr_in.devaddr); > + if (sk->sk_prot->bind) > + return sk->sk_prot->bind(sk, uaddr, addr_len); > + > + return sock_no_bind(sock, uaddr, addr_len); > +} > + > +static int > +lrw_sock_connect(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr *uaddr, > + int addr_len, int flags) > +{ > + struct sock *sk = sock->sk; > + > + if (addr_len < sizeof(uaddr->sa_family)) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + return sk->sk_prot->connect(sk, uaddr, addr_len); > +} > + > +static int > +lrw_ndev_ioctl(struct sock *sk, struct ifreq __user *arg, unsigned int cmd) > +{ > + struct net_device *ndev; > + struct ifreq ifr; > + int ret; > + > + pr_debug("%s: cmd %ud\n", __func__, cmd); > + ret = -ENOIOCTLCMD; > + > + if (copy_from_user(&ifr, arg, sizeof(struct ifreq))) > + return -EFAULT; > + > + ifr.ifr_name[IFNAMSIZ - 1] = 0; > + > + dev_load(sock_net(sk), ifr.ifr_name); > + ndev = dev_get_by_name(sock_net(sk), ifr.ifr_name); > + > + netdev_dbg(ndev, "%s: cmd %ud\n", __func__, cmd); > + if (!ndev) > + return -ENODEV; > + > + if (ndev->type == ARPHRD_LORAWAN && ndev->netdev_ops->ndo_do_ioctl) > + ret = ndev->netdev_ops->ndo_do_ioctl(ndev, &ifr, cmd); > + > + if (!ret && copy_to_user(arg, &ifr, sizeof(struct ifreq))) > + ret = -EFAULT; > + dev_put(ndev); > + > + return ret; > +} > + > +static int > +lrw_sock_ioctl(struct socket *sock, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) > +{ > + struct sock *sk = sock->sk; > + > + pr_debug("%s: cmd %ud\n", __func__, cmd); > + switch (cmd) { > + case SIOCGSTAMP: > + return sock_get_timestamp(sk, (struct timeval __user *)arg); > + case SIOCGSTAMPNS: > + return sock_get_timestampns(sk, (struct timespec __user *)arg); > + case SIOCOUTQ: > + case SIOCINQ: > + if (!sk->sk_prot->ioctl) > + return -ENOIOCTLCMD; > + return sk->sk_prot->ioctl(sk, cmd, arg); > + default: > + return lrw_ndev_ioctl(sk, (struct ifreq __user *)arg, cmd); > + } > +} > + > +static int > +lrw_sock_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len) > +{ > + struct sock *sk = sock->sk; > + > + pr_debug("%s: going to send %zu bytes\n", __func__, len); > + return sk->sk_prot->sendmsg(sk, msg, len); > +} > + > +static const struct proto_ops lrw_dgram_ops = { > + .family = PF_LORAWAN, > + .owner = THIS_MODULE, > + .release = lrw_sock_release, > + .bind = lrw_sock_bind, > + .connect = lrw_sock_connect, > + .socketpair = sock_no_socketpair, > + .accept = sock_no_accept, > + .getname = sock_no_getname, > + .poll = datagram_poll, > + .ioctl = lrw_sock_ioctl, > + .listen = sock_no_listen, > + .shutdown = sock_no_shutdown, > + .setsockopt = sock_common_setsockopt, > + .getsockopt = sock_common_getsockopt, > + .sendmsg = lrw_sock_sendmsg, > + .recvmsg = sock_common_recvmsg, > + .mmap = sock_no_mmap, > + .sendpage = sock_no_sendpage, > +}; > + > +static int > +lorawan_creat(struct net *net, struct socket *sock, int protocol, int kern) create Also, why lorawan_ here and lrw_ elsewhere? > +{ > + struct sock *sk; > + int ret; > + > + if (!net_eq(net, &init_net)) > + return -EAFNOSUPPORT; > + > + if (sock->type != SOCK_DGRAM) > + return -EAFNOSUPPORT; > + > + /* Allocates enough memory for dgram_sock whose first member is sk */ > + sk = sk_alloc(net, PF_LORAWAN, GFP_KERNEL, &lrw_dgram_prot, kern); > + if (!sk) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + sock->ops = &lrw_dgram_ops; > + sock_init_data(sock, sk); > + sk->sk_family = PF_LORAWAN; > + sock_set_flag(sk, SOCK_ZAPPED); > + > + if (sk->sk_prot->hash) { > + ret = sk->sk_prot->hash(sk); > + if (ret) { > + sk_common_release(sk); > + goto lorawan_creat_end; > + } > + } > + > + if (sk->sk_prot->init) { > + ret = sk->sk_prot->init(sk); > + if (ret) > + sk_common_release(sk); > + } > + > +lorawan_creat_end: create > + return ret; > +} > + > +static const struct net_proto_family lorawan_family_ops = { > + .owner = THIS_MODULE, > + .family = PF_LORAWAN, > + .create = lorawan_creat, > +}; > + > +static int > +lrw_dgram_deliver(struct net_device *ndev, struct sk_buff *skb) > +{ > + struct dgram_sock *ro; > + struct sock *sk; > + bool found; > + int ret; > + > + ret = NET_RX_SUCCESS; > + found = false; In times of C99 you could probably fold that into the declarations. > + > + read_lock(&dgram_lock); > + sk_for_each(sk, &dgram_head) { > + ro = dgram_sk(sk); > + if (cpu_to_be32(ro->src_devaddr) == *(__be32 *)ndev->dev_addr) { > + found = true; > + break; > + } > + } > + read_unlock(&dgram_lock); > + > + if (!found) > + goto lrw_dgram_deliver_err; > + > + skb = skb_share_check(skb, GFP_ATOMIC); > + if (!skb) > + return NET_RX_DROP; > + > + if (sock_queue_rcv_skb(sk, skb) < 0) > + goto lrw_dgram_deliver_err; > + > + return ret; > + > +lrw_dgram_deliver_err: > + kfree_skb(skb); > + ret = NET_RX_DROP; > + return ret; > +} > + > +static int > +lorawan_rcv(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *ndev, > + struct packet_type *pt, struct net_device *orig_ndev) > +{ > + if (!netif_running(ndev)) > + goto lorawan_rcv_drop; > + > + if (!net_eq(dev_net(ndev), &init_net)) > + goto lorawan_rcv_drop; > + > + if (ndev->type != ARPHRD_LORAWAN) > + goto lorawan_rcv_drop; > + > + if (skb->pkt_type != PACKET_OTHERHOST) > + return lrw_dgram_deliver(ndev, skb); > + > +lorawan_rcv_drop: > + kfree_skb(skb); > + return NET_RX_DROP; > +} > + > +static struct packet_type lorawan_packet_type = { > + .type = htons(ETH_P_LORAWAN), > + .func = lorawan_rcv, > +}; > + > +static int __init > +lrw_sock_init(void) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + pr_info("module inserted\n"); > + ret = proto_register(&lrw_dgram_prot, 1); > + if (ret) > + goto lrw_sock_init_end; > + > + /* Tell SOCKET that we are alive */ Drop? > + ret = sock_register(&lorawan_family_ops); > + if (ret) > + goto lrw_sock_init_err; > + > + dev_add_pack(&lorawan_packet_type); > + ret = 0; > + goto lrw_sock_init_end; > + > +lrw_sock_init_err: > + proto_unregister(&lrw_dgram_prot); > + > +lrw_sock_init_end: > + return 0; return ret;? > +} > + > +static void __exit > +lrw_sock_exit(void) > +{ > + dev_remove_pack(&lorawan_packet_type); > + sock_unregister(PF_LORAWAN); > + proto_unregister(&lrw_dgram_prot); > + pr_info("module removed\n"); > +} > + > +module_init(lrw_sock_init); > +module_exit(lrw_sock_exit); > + > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Jian-Hong Pan, "); Drop the comma? > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("LoRaWAN socket kernel module"); Aren't they all kernel modules? :) > +MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL"); > +MODULE_ALIAS_NETPROTO(PF_LORAWAN); Regards, Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)