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  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:	Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:40:45 -0700
From:	Daniel Gimpelevich <>
To:	Marcel Holtmann <>
Cc:	"John W. Linville" <>,
	" Wireless" 
	Johannes Berg <>,
	"David S. Miller" <>,
	Network Development <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] allow setting wiphy.perm_addr after driver probe

On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 13:25 -0700, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> isn't this dangerous to just allow writing to wiphy.perm_addr via
> sysfs. We ran into the same issue with Bluetooth and ROM only devices
> that have to unique address. Doing this via sysfs seems the wrong
> approach. It is messy and full of potential race conditions. I clearly
> opted against the sysfs solution for Bluetooth. Instead we build an
> infrastructure that allowed doing it cleanly via the Bluetooth mgmt
> API. Controllers that have no unique address are brought up as
> unconfigured and userspace clearly knows that it has to take steps to
> get an address programmed into the controller.

My inclination is to agree; however, this does not exist for WiFi and
implementing it would require modifying every single driver.

> And I think something similar should be done for WiFi. It might be
> better to not create the initial wlan0 netdev interface if the
> hardware has not a single unique address available. That way the
> supplicant can just either get one from the flash filesystem or make
> up a proper random one before creating the netdev interface.
The initial wlan0 netdev interface is *not* created, but the PHY records
a MAC address that cannot be overriden at the level that this sysfs node
reads. Perhaps a compromise would be to create a single new syscall to
write to it?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists