linux-kernel - Re: libertas (private) ioctls vs. nl80211

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070614170901.GA13384@infradead.org>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:09:01 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>,
	Holger Schurig <hs4233@...l.mn-solutions.de>, akpm@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: libertas (private) ioctls vs. nl80211

Independent of any nl80211 status the private libertas ioctls have to
go.  Not only don't we want private ioctls for mesh networking but rather
have it as driver-independent interface, but the actual libertas interface
is the worst possible choice.  It uses the absolutely broken iwpriv interface
instead of plain ioctls, and has a cmpletely confusing forest of sub ioctls.

I strongly recommend ripping out all the ioctls for 2.6.22 and waiting for
a proper interface to appear.  The olpc people can patch the ioctls back
in for their use, but we should not put in interface like this into the
upstream kernel.  All NIC vendors get pushed back badly when they try
to put in less crappy ioctls, there is no reason to make a exception for
libtertas just because it's used by a project that some of the involved
maintainers like a lot.
-
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/