netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/39] merge request for WiMAX kernel stack and i2400m driver v2

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:	Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:05:02 -0500
From:	Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
	Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky@...ux.intel.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/39] merge request for WiMAX kernel stack and i2400m
	driver v2

On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 12:23 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > The idea is to make the WiMAX subsystem more generic and create  
> > something similar to what we have with mac80211/cfg80211 and also  
> > inside Bluetooth. This is the common starting point and next step is  
> > to move functionality that has been identified as generic and common  
> > from the driver into the subsystem.
> 
> The problem is with the current stack design this isn't really possible,
> since the stack only provides like three real commands:
>  * talk to driver
>  * reset device
>  * do rfkill (though I'm not sure why this is needed)
> 
> > I prefer if we do this development inside the kernel tree instead of  
> > externally. One big thing we should have learned from mac80211 is that  
> > developing a full stack outside the kernel source tree is not really  
> > working out. We should apply the same model as we did for ext4 or what  
> > Greg is doing with his staging tree.
> 
> The problem with that is that the stack is setting APIs in stone that
> are, if you ask me, suboptimal. Once we add those, I don't see how we
> can migrate away from a "command handled by driver" model towards a
> "command handled by stack and appropriate driver callback called" model,
> which would be more like cfg80211/nl80211 rather than iwpriv.
> 
> > It has been open source since quite some time now at linuxwimax.org  
> > (exception are some tiny binary pieces).
> 
> Ok, sorry, I thought there was a bunch of binary code still.

The 802.1x supplicant still is.

Dan


--
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