netdev - Re: [PATCH 15/39] i2400m: host-to-device protocol definitions

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: <200812021806.54231.inaky@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 2 Dec 2008 18:06:53 -0800
From:	Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/39] i2400m: host-to-device protocol definitions

On Thursday 27 November 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 15:07 -0800, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote:
> > +/* Message types */
> > +enum i2400m_mt {
> > +	I2400M_MT_RESERVED              = 0x0000,
> > +	I2400M_MT_INVALID               = 0xffff,
 > ...
> > +	I2400M_MT_REPORT_EAP_RESTART    = 0xe003,
> > +	I2400M_MT_REPORT_ALT_ACCEPT    	= 0xe004,
> > +	I2400M_MT_REPORT_KEY_REQUEST 	= 0xe005,
>
> Since this is all device-specific, this is like implementing all of
> 802.11 management with iwpriv. 

No it is not -- management is done at the device level; disconnect WiFi, 
because this is completely different.

> Do you really want that? Why wouldn't most of these commands port 
> over to other hardware? 

As explained on the first message, vendors might choose to break the
hw interface at a different level. We won't force vendors to use the
same interface as the Intel device does or make the same design 
decisions we made.

-- 
Inaky

--
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