netdev - Re: wireless extensions vs. 64-bit architectures

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: <20070308221128.GA24884@bougret.hpl.hp.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:11:28 -0800
From:	Jean Tourrilhes <jt@....hp.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	Jouni Malinen <jkm@...icescape.com>, Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>, Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: wireless extensions vs. 64-bit architectures

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 08:40:01PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 11:34 -0800, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> 
> > Yes, workaround in just iwlib is not enough. If the only possible
> > solution is user space workaround, it better be documented (and
> > communicated to maintainers of user space apps) well so that
> > all user space programs not using iwlib can be modified, too.
> 
> The more I think about it the worse it gets. Think about wireless events
> where both 32 and 64-bit userspace programs may be listening... That
> means we can't even fix it in the kernel without breaking something.
> 
> johannes

	This is exactly what I was pointing out earlier. Well,
actually, there may be ways of fixing it in the kernel, but that would
be real ugly, and I don't want to go there.

	I've just released wireless_tools.29.pre15.tar.gz. This is
supposed to include a "band-aid" for that problem. To the best of my
knowledge, it should catch the problem and not introduce false
positive. I would be glad if you guys would have a quick look into it,
because obviously I can't test it.

	Now, about the way forward...
	First possiblity, we could stick with this band-aid
permanently.

	Second possiblity : we do the right thing and plan a API
change to return struct always aligned on 32 bits. This way, when we
get 128 bit processor, we don't have to add another band aid ;-)
	It would work like the ESSID changeover. We pick a WE version
changeover. We introduce userspace that can deal with before and
after. After 1 or 2 years, we flip the switch. After another 1 or 2
years, we get rid of backward compatibility.

	Third possibility : we declare 32 bit userspace on 64 bit
kernel as not supported and advise users to get a 64 bit
userspace. The number of bug report on that issue would suggest that
very few users are in this case.

	I know the userspace guys will hate (1) and hate even more (2).

	Regards,

	Jean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html