linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rfkill bug fixed in rfkill_set_sw

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:14:52 +0900
From:	Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>
To:	Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill bug fixed in rfkill_set_sw_state

Alan Jenkins wrote:
> Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>> Ok Next time, i will add sutatble cc's scripts/get_maintainer.pl. 
>> thanks..
>>> Suitable cc's (from scripts/get_maintainer.pl) added.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:55:31 +0900
>>> _________<jh80.chung@...sung.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don___t work expected operation in __rfkill_set_sw_state.
>>>> when rfkill initialized. Rfkill___s blocked&  unblocked is 
>>>> operating on the
>>>> contrary.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaehoon Chung<jh80.chung@...sung.com>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>   net/rfkill/core.c |    2 +-
>>>>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/net/rfkill/core.c b/net/rfkill/core.c
>>>> index c224cb2..dcc2d38 100644
>>>> --- a/net/rfkill/core.c
>>>> +++ b/net/rfkill/core.c
>>>> @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ static void __rfkill_set_sw_state(struct rfkill
>>>> *rfkill, bool blocked)
>>>>       if (rfkill->state&  RFKILL_BLOCK_SW_SETCALL)
>>>>           bit = RFKILL_BLOCK_SW_PREV;
>>>>
>>>> -    if (blocked)
>>>> +    if (!blocked)
>>>>           rfkill->state |= bit;
>>>>       else
>>>>           rfkill->state&= ~bit;
>>> Are you sure?  What problems were you observing with the existing code?
>>> Please fully describe your hardware and the driver's behaviour.
>>>
>>> The current code _looks_ OK to me.  If bool `blocked' is true, we set
>>> the RFKILL_BLOCK_SW bit?
>> I implemented the wlan driver using rfkill.
>> In my source code, the wlan driver initalized to 
>> RFKLL_USESR_STATE_UNBLOCKED..
>> if that is correct, maybe do working the unblocked...but not work 
>> "unblocked"
>>
>> below code is unblock's operation..right?
>> rfkill_init_sw_state(wlan, RFKILL_USER_STATE_UNBLOCKED);
>>
>> but, do not operate unblocked.
>> please check that source code..
>
> I see the problem :).  The hint is in the _USER_ - those constants are 
> not for use by drivers.  You want this instead:
>
> rfkill_init_sw_state(wlan, false);
>
> (assuming you really want init_sw_state().  Please do check that your 
> device state is persistent, as described by the comment in rfkill.h).
>
> Regards
> Alan
>

Oh...i checked the comment in rfkill.h. i didn't see that comment.
thanks for your opinion..:)

Regards
Jaehoon Chung
--
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/