From: Emil Goode <emilgoode@gmail.com>
To: "Bjørn Mork" <bjorn@mork.no>
Cc: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
Glen Turner <gdt@gdt.id.au>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] usbnet: fix bad header length bug
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:54:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140210155436.GA4258@lianli> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87iosn86en.fsf@nemi.mork.no>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 02:05:20PM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org> writes:
> > On Mon, 2014-02-10 at 13:00 +0100, Emil Goode wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 07:40:58AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >
> >> > Well, then how about simply removing the check?
> >> > It seems to have outlived its usefulness.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> > Oliver
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I did consider that and I think it is probably the best thing to do.
> >> However, I think the removal of the check could have negative effects
> >> on the other minidrivers, at least the qmi_wwan minidriver explicitly
> >> states that it is depending on this check to be made in rx_complete().
> >
> > <censored>.
>
> No need to do that. I had the exact same reaction myself :-)
>
> Anyway, I put that comment there mostly as a note to myself why the
> check would be redundant at that point. I don't see any problem with
> removing the generic check in usbnet as long as we add similar checks
> whereever they are needed, like in qmi_wwan.
I think it could be worth the trouble of removing the generic check in
the usbnet module.
I believe that if you define your own rx_fixup callback then the
usbnet module should not make it's own assumptions on what packets
to discard.
Since the checks that need to be added in various places are all in
the same subsystem I think it could be done in as little as one patch?
> Note that usbnet_skb_return will be one of those places. It calls
> eth_type_trans() on the skb, so it should verify that the length is at
> least ETH_HLEN first.
>
> > Oh well. But how about merging it with FLAG_MULTI_PACKET?
> > I really don't want to add more flags. There is a point where enough
> > flags make absurd having a common code. We are closing in on that point.
>
> Agreed. I would even say we are past that point...
If nobody have any objections I will try removing the generic check and
introduce checks where nessecary.
Best regards,
Emil Goode
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-10 15:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-09 23:06 [PATCH 1/2 v2] usbnet: fix bad header length bug Emil Goode
2014-02-09 23:06 ` [PATCH 2/2] net: asix: add missing flag to struct driver_info Emil Goode
2014-02-10 6:40 ` [PATCH 1/2 v2] usbnet: fix bad header length bug Oliver Neukum
2014-02-10 12:00 ` Emil Goode
2014-02-10 12:22 ` Oliver Neukum
2014-02-10 12:39 ` David Laight
2014-02-10 13:05 ` Bjørn Mork
2014-02-10 15:54 ` Emil Goode [this message]
2014-02-11 7:43 ` Oliver Neukum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140210155436.GA4258@lianli \
--to=emilgoode@gmail.com \
--cc=bjorn@mork.no \
--cc=broonie@linaro.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gdt@gdt.id.au \
--cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@canonical.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oliver@neukum.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox