> " The AX.25 device level drivers are simply written to be robust if > thrown partial frames. > : > The other thing that concerns me about this added logic in general is > that you are also breaking test tools that want to deliberately send > corrupt frames to certain classes of interface." > > But how does the driver (even a robust one!) compute the L2 dst/src if the > application has not even passed down the minimum (which is 21 for ax25?)
Perhaps the goal is to test that the driver gracefully handles such packets. I can only speculate. > 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. > BTW the http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/401064 referred > to in commit 2793a23 is not accessible any more, not sure if its contents > were the same as the link you just shared. It is. I looked it up in my email archive. Too bad that that seems to be the only way.
