netdev - Re: [PATCH wpan-next 1/6] net: ieee802154: Drop coordinator interface type

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: <CAK-6q+hAZMqsN=S9uWAm4rTN+uZwz7_L42=emPHz7+MvfW6ZpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Jun 2022 22:01:38 -0400
From:   Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com>
To:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>,
        Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>,
        linux-wpan - ML <linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Girault <david.girault@...vo.com>,
        Romuald Despres <romuald.despres@...vo.com>,
        Frederic Blain <frederic.blain@...vo.com>,
        Nicolas Schodet <nico@...fr.eu.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH wpan-next 1/6] net: ieee802154: Drop coordinator interface type

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 2:34 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:
>
> The current enum is wrong. A device can either be an RFD, an RFD-RX, an
> RFD-TX or an FFD. If it is an FFD, it can also be a coordinator. While
> defining a node type might make sense from a strict software point of
> view, opposing node and coordinator seems meaningless in the ieee
> 802.15.4 world. As this enumeration is not used anywhere, let's just
> drop it. We will in a second time add a new "node type" enumeration
> which apply only to nodes, and does differentiates the type of devices
> mentioned above.
>

First you cannot say if this is not used anywhere else. Second I have
a different opinion here that you cannot just "switch" the role from
RFD, FFD, whatever.
You are mixing things here with "role in the network" and what the
transceiver capability (RFD, FFD) is, which are two different things.

You should use those defines and the user needs to create a new
interface type and probably have a different extended address to act
as a coordinator.

- Alex