On wo, 23 jan 2019 13:01:13 +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> We only want to receive the package if src_name name packet's dest_name
> is set and they are equal. If one name is missing we compare the
> addresses instead (else branch).
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/can/j1939/socket.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/can/j1939/socket.c b/net/can/j1939/socket.c
> index 73ac92163373..9d3da573c31d 100644
> --- a/net/can/j1939/socket.c
> +++ b/net/can/j1939/socket.c
> @@ -134,9 +134,8 @@ static void j1939_sk_recv_one(struct j1939_sock *jsk, struct sk_buff *oskb)
> /* this socket does not take packets from this iface */
> return;
> if (!(jsk->state & J1939_SOCK_PROMISC)) {
BTW, I assumed you had dropped promiscuous operation completely?
> - if (jsk->addr.src_name) {
if src_name is set, then the user want to be addressed using its name.
> - if (oskcb->addr.dst_name &&
dst_name is set regardless of what the (receiving) user wants, it is set
on available name.
So this test actually is the good one, you don't want to fallback to
addr comparison because you have not (yet) successfully claimed the
addr, and hence, the recv part does not assign dst_name (yet).
IMHO, you're breaking reception path during the address claiming
process.
Can you explain what problem you tried to solve here?
> - oskcb->addr.dst_name != jsk->addr.src_name)
> + if (jsk->addr.src_name && oskcb->addr.dst_name) {
> + if (oskcb->addr.dst_name != jsk->addr.src_name)
Kind regards,
kurt
