linux-kernel - Re: [net-next 12/18] net: mac802154: Handle scan requests

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]

Date:   Wed, 5 Jan 2022 19:38:12 -0500
From:   Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>
To:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>
Cc:     Nicolas Schodet <nico@...fr.eu.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-wpan - ML <linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Girault <david.girault@...vo.com>,
        Romuald Despres <romuald.despres@...vo.com>,
        Frederic Blain <frederic.blain@...vo.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next 12/18] net: mac802154: Handle scan requests

Hi,

On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 15:55, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:
...
> > rest in software is a bigger task here...
>
> On the symbol duration side I feel I'm close to a working PoC.
>

oh, ok.

> So there is 'only' this item left in my mind. Could you please clarify
> what you expect from me exactly in terms of support for the promiscuous
> filters we discussed so far?
>

I think for now it's okay to set the device into promiscuous mode and
enable the flag which checks for bad FCS... we can still implement the
filter modes later (and I think it should work on all supported
transceivers (except that SoftMAC/HardMAC thing)).

One point to promiscuous mode, currently we have a checking for if a
phy is in promiscuous mode on ifup and it would forbid to ifup a node
interface if the phy is in promiscuous mode (because of the missing
automatic acknowledgement). I see there is a need to turn the phy into
promiscuous mode during runtime... so we need somehow make sure the
constraints are still valid here. Maybe we even forbid multiple devs
on a phy if the transceiver/driver/firmware is poor and this is
currently all transceivers (except hwsim? But that doesn't use any ack
handling anyway).

> Also, just for the record,
> - should I keep copying the netdev list for v2?

yes, why not.

> - should I monitor if net-next is open before sending or do you have
>   your own set of rules?
>

I need to admit, Stefan is the "Thanks, applied." hero here and he
should answer this question.

- Alex