netdev - Re: [net-next 12/18] net: mac802154: Handle scan requests

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:   Wed, 29 Dec 2021 15:45:47 +0100
From:   Nicolas Schodet <nico@...fr.eu.org>
To:     Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>
Cc:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>,
        linux-wpan - ML <linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Girault <david.girault@...vo.com>,
        Romuald Despres <romuald.despres@...vo.com>,
        Frederic Blain <frederic.blain@...vo.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next 12/18] net: mac802154: Handle scan requests

Hi,

* Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com> [2021-12-29 09:30]:
> Hi,
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 at 10:58, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:
> ...
> > +{
> > +       bool promiscuous_on = mac802154_check_promiscuous(local);
> > +       int ret;
> > +
> > +       if ((state && promiscuous_on) || (!state && !promiscuous_on))
> > +               return 0;
> > +
> > +       ret = drv_set_promiscuous_mode(local, state);
> > +       if (ret)
> > +               pr_err("Failed to %s promiscuous mode for SW scanning",
> > +                      state ? "set" : "reset");
> The semantic of promiscuous mode on the driver layer is to turn off
> ack response, address filtering and crc checking. Some transceivers
> don't allow a more fine tuning on what to enable/disable. I think we
> should at least do the checksum checking per software then?
> Sure there is a possible tune up for more "powerful" transceivers then...

In this case, the driver could change the (flags &
IEEE802154_HW_RX_DROP_BAD_CKSUM) bit dynamically to signal it does not
check the checksum anymore. Would it work?

Nicolas.