Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] packet: always ensure that we pass hard_header_len bytes in skb_headlen() to the driver

From: Sowmini Varadhan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:03:20 -0500

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