From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D83C433FE for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 21:10:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD4A230F9 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 21:10:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725819AbgLEVJz (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Dec 2020 16:09:55 -0500 Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.219]:34231 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725270AbgLEVJy (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Dec 2020 16:09:54 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1607202360; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=hartkopp.net; h=In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=yyLJS0cTLJL5jVvZTqB5XKri3GF9RTNiqJ4VKSG2so4=; b=H4NMwfiXkuUaIuuxJe6FEh+w9IEaS22d5h+pWe+yY0LnUfGye4EJOU+CtWoO0mOF7k xdL56I3HOQUu4ZplxT2N0O0B4H1bor5XnpZX7o0FTZ2Fn1acEwZSnrblsbcSigWz1CMI EAOcf9NwvAoc31gyG3uyARtG1CiJl6iFrsBrPUuwm2QC4FlMD/6p0JV9Unmfryq1fiBH eU+SejVUZsMoC1R+VT6DbiBdAxnt6EGL3t1FxPwH8b2k9VmOcYF1CR8KKnWOyv/lfWn9 zfT0mLn2GScRf4q/eRII1s8LBRYlsb7nsGlfryfCL2FO+aNZMMhsnpwq8vW+4cAlcT0Z 1iJg== X-RZG-AUTH: ":P2MHfkW8eP4Mre39l357AZT/I7AY/7nT2yrDxb8mjG14FZxedJy6qgO1o3PMaViOoLMJVch5kErC" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from [192.168.50.177] by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 47.3.4 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id n07f3bwB5L5wMBG (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate); Sat, 5 Dec 2020 22:05:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [PATCH] isotp: do not validate RX address when the broadcast flag is active To: Marc Kleine-Budde , Thomseeen , linux-can@vger.kernel.org References: <20201204135557.55599-1-thwa1@web.de> From: Oliver Hartkopp Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 22:05:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-can@vger.kernel.org On 05.12.20 21:59, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 12/4/20 2:55 PM, Thomseeen wrote: >> EADDRNOTAVAIL shouldn't be thrown when an invalid RX address (e.g. NO_CAN_ID) >> is set while the socket is used with the CAN_ISOTP_SF_BROADCAST flag. >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomseeen > > Is this your realname? For the kernel the s-o-b requires your realname. For > details about the S-o-b, see: > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9.12/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L423 > Thomas' name is correct in my patch here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/ce547683-925d-6971-6566-a0b54146090a@pengutronix.de/T/#m3c780406ff756cd0b66f1d34744fb4d8eb4abaf6 Regards, Oliver