netdev - RE: [PATCH] [v13] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices

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: <CWXP265MB1799D85AE9E812F733416E9FE09F9@CWXP265MB1799.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date:   Wed, 24 Feb 2021 10:41:34 +0000
From:   Srinivasan Raju <srini.raju@...elifi.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC:     Mostafa Afgani <mostafa.afgani@...elifi.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS (WIRELESS)" 
        <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] [v13] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi
 STA devices

> That wasn't my point. My point was that the kernel code trusts the validity of the firmware image, in the sense of e.g. this piece:

>>  +     no_of_files = *(u32 *)&fw_packed->data[0];

> If the firmware file was corrupted (intentionally/maliciously or not), this could now be say 0xffffffff.

Thanks for the clarification, We will submit next patch with additional validations to this

> What are your reasons for piggy-backing on 2.4 GHz? Just practical "it's there and we don't care"?

As the LiFi is not standardised yet we are using the existing wireless frameworks. For now piggy-backing with 2.4GHz is seamless for users. We will undertake band and other wider change once IEEE 802.11bb is standardised.

Thanks
Srini