On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 11:25:50AM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:

On 3/7/20 6:13 AM, David Miller wrote:

quoted

From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 15:12:48 +0100

quoted

On 3/2/20 8:12 PM, David Miller wrote:

quoted

From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 09:45:41 +0100

quoted

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.

Like this:

if (netdev->ops != &can_netdev_ops)
	return;

There is no single can_netdev_ops. The netdev_ops are per CAN-network
driver. But the ml_priv is used in the generic CAN code.

ping,

are there any other ways or ideas how to solve this issue?

Regards,
Oleksij

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |