From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sowmini Varadhan Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] packet: always ensure that we pass hard_header_len bytes in skb_headlen() to the driver Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:03:20 -0500 Message-ID: <20170127170320.GD25829@oracle.com> References: <1485274309-201670-1-git-send-email-sowmini.varadhan@oracle.com> <20170126213742.GE29475@oracle.com> <20170127020836.GH29475@oracle.com> <20170127151119.GB25829@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , Network Development To: Willem de Bruijn Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:45861 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754783AbdA0RDe (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:03:34 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On (01/27/17 10:28), Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > Would it make sense to only do the CAP_SYS_RAWIO branch if the > > driver declares itself to have variable length L2 headers, via, e.g., > > some priv flag? > > At the time, the comments were not specific to AX25. Again, we should > probably put that bypass behind a flag, enabling validating in the common case. Just to make sure I'm on the same page as you (since you have more history with this one..) we are going to have a priv_flags like IFF_VAR_L2HDR which (today) would only be set for ax25, and we would only take the CAP_SYS_RAWIO branch for IFF_VAR_L2HDR, right? --Sowmini