netdev - Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 6 [ wireless | iwlwifi

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:	Tue, 6 Aug 2013 23:56:57 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	sedat.dilek@...il.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 6 [ wireless | iwlwifi | mac80211 ? ]

On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:45:38PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 23:40 +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> 
> > > Does the problem occur on client or server side? AFAICT, hostapd as well
> > > as wpa_supplicant use AF_PACKET.
> > >
> > > The tricky thing is, these patches are meant to *loosen* the
> > > restrictions in af_packet.c, so *should* not be harmful. So either my
> > > patches create a side effect I did not foresee, or it's something nasty
> > > (too much delay introduced by calling eth_type_trans() or so).
> 
> > By reverting the culprit commit my network/wifi is fine, again.
> > See also attached patch with changelog.
> 
> I think skb->protocol is probably getting set up wrong, and just putting
> back the last two lines
> 
>         skb->protocol = proto;
>         skb->dev = dev;
> 
> is probably sufficient to fix wifi. If skb->protocol isn't set to
> ETH_P_PAE, then we'd drop the packet in the wifi stack - might be worth
> printing out what it's set to at the point where the skb->protocol
> assignment above was removed.
> 
> I'm trying to wrap my head around all this right now but I don't yet see
> how the code after the patch would not get skb->protocol correct.

Has anybody tested plain ethernet? I have a malfunctioning dhclient on
ethernet since the weekend(it seems to not receive any packet). I did not
look after it because have other patches on my todo list currently. Maybe
it is the same error?

Greetings,

  Hannes

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html