linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for June 3 (rfkill)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:53:37 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Gábor Stefanik <netrolller.3d@...il.com>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for June 3 (rfkill)

On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 17:47 +0200, Gábor Stefanik wrote:

> >> CFG80211=y
> >> MAC80211=y
> >> RFKILL=m
> >>
> >> net/built-in.o: In function `cfg80211_netdev_notifier_call':
> >> core.c:(.text+0xa678b): undefined reference to `rfkill_blocked'
> >> net/built-in.o: In function `cfg80211_dev_free':
> >
> > Hrm. I thought
> >
> > config CFG80211
> >        tristate "Improved wireless configuration API"
> >        depends on RFKILL || !RFKILL
> >
> > would avoid that. Why doesn't it?
> >
> > johannes
> >
> 
> Maybe the "y" state of CFG80211 specifically needs to depend on
> RFKILL=y || !RFKILL.

Maybe doesn't help me at all.

> BTW should CFG80211=y really be blocked when RFKILL=m? 

Yes.

> Shouldn't we
> just disable CFG80211 RFKILL support in this case (perhaps via a
> separate CONFIG_CFG80211_RFKILL automatically configured depending on
> CONFIG_RFKILL)?

That would be immensely stupid. You might as well just make cfg80211 a
module then.

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)