linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rfkill: clarify usage of rfkill_force_state() and rfkill->get

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: <1221760328.9262.94.camel@johannes.berg>
Date:	Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:52:08 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Ivo van Doorn <ivdoorn@...il.com>
Cc:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
	John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill: clarify usage of rfkill_force_state() and
	rfkill->get_state()

On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 19:32 +0200, Ivo van Doorn wrote:

> Ideal situation would indeed be that mac80211 registers a rfkill structure
> and listens to rfkill events. This would help drivers by only needing to
> register a rfkill structure for state-change events without any need for
> listeners.

Yup.

> I was considering such a patch some time ago, but needed to figure out
> how to work with the state-override capabilities (HW_BLOCK and SOFT_BLOCK)
> and didn't work on it any further since.

So make the struct part of the hw structure? Then drivers can just use
that to force hard events. Or actually, no, don't do this, make a new
mac80211 call:

	ieee80211_inform_hardblocked(BLOCK/OPEN)

which makes sure we can also try to not associate in this case in the
future...

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)