[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180314082715.13deee1f@xeon-e3>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:27:15 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>,
Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
Chi-Hsien Lin <chi-hsien.lin@...ress.com>,
Wright Feng <wright.feng@...ress.com>,
Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieter-paul.giesberts@...adcom.com>,
James Hughes <james.hughes@...pberrypi.org>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com,
brcm80211-dev-list@...ress.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue>,
Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] brcmfmac: drop Inter-Access Point Protocol packets by
default
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:08:48 +0200
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> writes:
>
> > On 3/14/2018 3:24 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> >>> +config BRCMFMAC_IAPP
> >>> >+ bool "Partial support for obsoleted Inter-Access Point Protocol"
> >>> >+ depends on BRCMFMAC
> >>> >+ ---help---
> >>> >+ Most of Broadcom's firmwares can send 802.11f ADD frame every
> >>> >+ time new STA connects to the AP interface. Some recent ones
> >>> >+ can also disassociate STA when they receive such a frame.
> >>> >+
> >>> >+ It's important to understand this behavior can lead to a local
> >>> >+ DoS security issue. Attacker may trigger disassociation of any
> >>> >+ STA by sending a proper Ethernet frame to the wireless
> >>> >+ interface.
> >>> >+
> >>> >+ Moreover this feature may break AP interfaces in some specific
> >>> >+ setups. This applies e.g. to the bridge with hairpin mode
> >>> >+ enabled and IFLA_BRPORT_MCAST_TO_UCAST set. IAPP packet
> >>> >+ generated by a firmware will get passed back to the wireless
> >>> >+ interface and cause immediate disassociation of just-connected
> >>> >+ STA.
> >> Sorry for jumping late, but does it really make sense to have a Kconfig
> >> option for this? I don't think we should add a Kconfig option for every
> >> strange feature, there should be stronger reasons (size savings etc)
> >> before adding a Kconfig option.
> >>
> >> And in this case the size savings can't be much. Wouldn't a module
> >> parameter be simpler for a functionality change like this?
> >
> > Hi Kalle,
> >
> > Good to be wary about Kconfig option.
>
> I think Linus doesn't like pointless Kconfig options, me neither for
> that matter, so I try to make sure the justifications are really there
> before adding anything new.
>
> > So my reason for asking a Kconfig option is that this is directly in
> > the datapaths (tx and rx) so I prefer to disable/enable it compile
> > time rather then runtime.
>
> I'm no cpu profile expert but is really one (or two?) if checks of a
> cached variable in the datapath really measurable? My guess is that it's
> just noise in the results.
>
> But I'm not going to argue about it, if you think it's still needed I'm
> fine with that. Just mention in the commit log the justification the new
> Kconfig option.
If you have to disable it a module parameter is not a complete disaster
Powered by blists - more mailing lists