linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] rfkill - Add support for input key to control wireless radio

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]

Message-ID: <d120d5000612060724m7ebe0b1w5c0f24ba52ca75e7@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:24:08 -0500
From:	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	"Dan Williams" <dcbw@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Ivo van Doorn" <ivdoorn@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "John Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	"Jiri Benc" <jbenc@...e.cz>,
	"Lennart Poettering" <lennart@...ttering.net>,
	"Johannes Berg" <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	"Larry Finger" <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] rfkill - Add support for input key to control wireless radio

On 12/6/06, Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 09:37 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >
> > Fans of the 3rd method, speak up ;)
>
> I think I brought up the 3rd method initially in this thread.  I'm not
> necessarily advocating it, but I wanted to be sure people realized that
> this was a case, so that a clear decision would be made to support it or
> not to support it.
>
> (2) makes the most sense to me.  I don't think we need to care about
> edge-cases like "But I only wanted to rfkill _one_ of my bluetooth
> dongles!!!", that's just insane.
>
> But using (2) also begs the question, can we _always_ identify what
> interface the rfkill belongs to?  In Bastien's laptop, the rfkill switch
> _automatically_ disconnects the internal USB Bluetooth device from the
> USB bus, and uses the normal ipw2200 rfkill mechanism, whatever that is.
> In this case, you simply do not get an event that the bluetooth device
> is disabled from a button somewhere; it's just gone, and you'd have to
> do some magic to disable other bluetooth devices as well.
>

Is this the same physical button? If so then for this particular box
we'd just have to send 2 events - KEY_WIFI and KEY_BLUETOOTH at the
same time.

-- 
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/