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

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706141121080.14121@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	johannes@...solutions.net, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	dcbw@...hat.com, hs4233@...l.mn-solutions.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: libertas (private) ioctls vs. nl80211

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be increased
> > if you could prepare a patch...
> 
> Here we go:

I don't mind ripping them out, but it makes sense only if people are 
actually signed up to implementing this on a higher layer. As such, I'd 
need to get a sign-off from somebody actually involved in wireless mesh 
stuff etc.

Please? I do agree that the private iwpriv interface seems to be totally 
the wrong thing to do, but I want to see this as a first step towards a 
better situation, rather than just a "remove code that is ugly" issue!

Comments?

		Linus
-
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/