netdev - Re: [PATCH v5] wifi: rsi: Fix handling of 802.3 EAPOL frames sent via control port

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:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 07:39:42 +0200
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
To:     Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Angus Ainslie <angus@...ea.ca>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Martin Fuzzey <martin.fuzzey@...wbird.group>,
        Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>,
        Prameela Rani Garnepudi <prameela.j04cs@...il.com>,
        Sebastian Krzyszkowiak <sebastian.krzyszkowiak@...i.sm>,
        Siva Rebbagondla <siva8118@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] wifi: rsi: Fix handling of 802.3 EAPOL frames sent via control port

Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de> writes:

> On 11/9/22 17:20, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de> writes:
>>
>>> On 11/7/22 14:54, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>>> Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> BTW did you test this on a real device?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, SDIO RS9116 on next-20221104 and 5.10.153 .
>>>>
>>>> Very good, thanks.
>>>>
>>>>> What prompts this question ?
>>>>
>>>> I get too much "fixes" which have been nowhere near real hardware and
>>>> can break the driver instead of fixing anything, especially syzbot
>>>> patches have been notorious. So I have become cautious.
>>>
>>> Ah, this is a real problem right here.
>>>
>>> wpa-supplicant 2.9 from OE dunfell 3.1 works.
>>> wpa-supplicant 2.10 from OE kirkstone 4.0 fails.
>>>
>>> That's how I ran into this initially. My subsequent tests were with
>>> debian wpa-supplicant 2.9 and 2.10 packages, since that was easier,
>>> they (2.10 does, 2.9 does not) trigger the problem all the same.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid this RSI driver is so poorly maintained and has so many
>>> bugs, that, there is little that can make it worse. The dealing I had
>>> with RSI has been ... long ... and very depressing. I tried to get
>>> documentation or anything which would help us fix the problems we have
>>> with this RSI driver ourselves, but RSI refused it all and suggested
>>> we instead use their downstream driver (I won't go into the quality of
>>> that). It seems RSI has little interest in maintaining the upstream
>>> driver, pity.
>>>
>>> I've been tempted to flag this driver as BROKEN for a while, to
>>> prevent others from suffering with it.
>>
>> That's a pity indeed. Should we at least mark the driver as orphaned in
>> MAINTAINERS?
>>
>> Or even better if you Marek would be willing to step up as the
>> maintainer? :)
>
> I think best mark it orphaned, to make it clear what the state of the
> driver really is.
>
> If RSI was willing to provide documentation, or at least releases
> which are not 30k+/20k- single-all-in-one-commit dumps of code, or at
> least any help, I would consider it. But not like this.

Yeah, very understandable. So let's mark the driver orphaned then, can
someone send a patch?

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches