Re: [PATCH net] netrom: do some basic forms of validation on incoming frames

On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 11:49 AM jj <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is NOT an obsolete protocol..this is in use by amateur radio
> operators world-wide...we use it for RF comms usually, because what
> happens if the internet goes "down", we can still provide comms over
> slower RF links....(plus it's a fun mode)please PLEASE do not drop...and
> sorry for the noise...

There are at least three separable issues being conflated here.

One is whether amateur radio operators are using AX.25, NET/ROM, and
ROSE.  They are; that's indisputable.

Another is whether those operators are using the implementation in the
Linux kernel.  Some are (myself included), though many fewer than are
using the protocols generally.

The third is whether preserving the implementation of these in the
kernel is the best mechanism for using those protocols on Linux-based
systems.  For that, I would argue that no, it is not.

Taking just AX.25, the current implementation has known deficiencies:
it is buggy, implements an older version of the protocol, and at best
receives nominal maintenance: notably, the newer networking tools
(`ip`, `ss`, etc) meant as replacements for `netstat`, `route`, and
`ifconfig` have not been updated to incorporate information about the
amateur radio protocols, and recent changes have left them broken for
long stretches of time.  More details are available online, such as at
https://blog.habets.se/2021/11/AX25-user-space.html

There is very little to recommend the kernel implementations, and any
unique functionality they once provided, such as IP over AX.25, can be
done via other means in userspace; e.g., one can use TAP/TUN for IP
over AX.25.

Therefore, it would be better to remove these from the kernel, and
implement them in userspace instead, or use an existing userspace
implementation (e.g., LinBPQ or similar).  Backwards compatibility
with existing Linux applications that expect to use the sockets API
with amateur radio could `LD_PRELOAD` a shim compatibility library
that simulates the current programming interface.  There is simply no
reason to preserve these in the kernel, and bluntly, the
implementation is pure drag at this point.

Note that this doesn't preclude anyone from using AX.25 et al on
Linux, or force dependency on the Internet: it just moves the
implementation of those protocols out of the kernel and into a normal
userspace program, which is arguably easier to maintain and iterate on
for the ham community, anyway.

        - Dan C.
          (KZ2X)

> On 2026-04-10 07:28, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 07:24:36AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 08:32:35PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 20:03:28 +0100 Simon Horman wrote:
> >>>> I expect that checking skb->len isn't sufficient here
> >>>> and pskb_may_pull needs to be used to ensure that
> >>>> the data is also available in the linear section of the skb.
> >>> Or for simplicity we could also be testing against skb_headlen()
> >>> since we don't expect any legit non-linear frames here? Dunno.
> > Sure, that's find by me if it leads to simpler code than
> > using pskb_may_pull(). Else I'd lean towards pskb_may_pull()
> > as it is a more general approach that feels worth proliferating.
> >
> >> I'll be glad to change this either way, your call.  Given that this is
> >> an obsolete protocol that seems to only be a target for drive-by fuzzers
> >> to attack, whatever the simplest thing to do to quiet them up I'll be
> >> glad to implement.
> >>
> >> Or can we just delete this stuff entirely?  :)
> > Deleting sounds good to me.
> > But we likely need a deprecation process.
> > In which case fixing these bugs still makes sense for the short term.
> >
>