linux-kernel - [PATCH 2.6.31] rfkill: allow toggling soft state in sysfs again

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: <1247254899.21972.9.camel@johannes.local>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:41:39 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	John Linville <linville@...driver.com>
Cc:	Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@...tum.de>,
	Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
	debian-eeepc-devel@...ts.alioth.debian.org,
	acpi4asus-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Darren Salt <linux@...mustbejoking.demon.co.uk>
Subject: [PATCH 2.6.31] rfkill: allow toggling soft state in sysfs again

Apparently there actually _are_ tools that try to set
this in sysfs even though it wasn't supposed to be used
this way without claiming first. Guess what: now that
I've cleaned it all up it doesn't matter and we can
simply allow setting the soft-block state in sysfs.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
---
*shrug*, I don't like it, but whatever...

Please test & report.

 net/rfkill/core.c |   27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

--- wireless-testing.orig/net/rfkill/core.c	2009-07-10 21:29:10.000000000 +0200
+++ wireless-testing/net/rfkill/core.c	2009-07-10 21:36:31.000000000 +0200
@@ -648,15 +648,26 @@ static ssize_t rfkill_state_store(struct
 				  struct device_attribute *attr,
 				  const char *buf, size_t count)
 {
-	/*
-	 * The intention was that userspace can only take control over
-	 * a given device when/if rfkill-input doesn't control it due
-	 * to user_claim. Since user_claim is currently unsupported,
-	 * we never support changing the state from userspace -- this
-	 * can be implemented again later.
-	 */
+	struct rfkill *rfkill = to_rfkill(dev);
+	unsigned long state;
+	int err;
+
+	if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
+		return -EPERM;
+
+	err = strict_strtoul(buf, 0, &state);
+	if (err)
+		return err;
+
+	if (state != RFKILL_USER_STATE_SOFT_BLOCKED &&
+	    state != RFKILL_USER_STATE_UNBLOCKED)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex);
+	rfkill_set_block(rfkill, state == RFKILL_USER_STATE_SOFT_BLOCKED);
+	mutex_unlock(&rfkill_global_mutex);
 
-	return -EPERM;
+	return err ?: count;
 }
 
 static ssize_t rfkill_claim_show(struct device *dev,


--
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/