On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 3:12 PM Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/2/20 8:12 PM, David Miller wrote: > > From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 09:45:41 +0100 > > > >> I don't know yet whether it makes sense to have CAN bonding/team > >> devices. But if so we would need some more investigation. For now > >> disabling CAN interfaces for bonding/team devices seems to be > >> reasonable. > > > > Every single interesting device that falls into a special use case > > like CAN is going to be tempted to add a similar check. > > > > I don't want to set this precedence. > > > > Check that the devices you get passed are actually CAN devices, it's > > easy, just compare the netdev_ops and make sure they equal the CAN > > ones. > > Sorry, I'm not really sure how to implement this check. > > Should I maintain a list of all netdev_ops of all the CAN devices (= > whitelist) and the compare against that list? Having a global list of > pointers to network devices remind me of the old days of kernel-2.4. I think Dave means something like this: $ grep "netdev_ops == " drivers/net/*/*.c net/*/*.c drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c: if (event_dev->netdev_ops == &device_ops) drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c: if (dev->netdev_ops == &ppp_netdev_ops) net/dsa/slave.c: return dev->netdev_ops == &dsa_slave_netdev_ops; net/openvswitch/vport-internal_dev.c: return netdev->netdev_ops == &internal_dev_netdev_ops;
