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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <9ec77cf1ffaa29aedd57c29ac77b525d0e700acf.camel@sipsolutions.net> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 19:17:19 +0200 From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> To: James Prestwood <prestwoj@...il.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] net: move IFF_LIVE_ADDR_CHANGE to public flag On Wed, 2022-08-10 at 09:26 -0700, James Prestwood wrote: > > Ok, so this is how I originally did it in those old patches: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20190913195908.7871-2-prestwoj@gmail.com/ > > i.e. remove_interface, change the mac, add_interface. Hah, I didn't even remember that ... sorry. > But before I revive those I want to make sure a flag can be advertised > to userspace e.g. NL80211_EXT_FEATURE_LIVE_ADDRESS_CHANGE. (or > POWERED). Since this was the reason the patches got dropped in the > first place. > Well it seems that my objection then was basically that you have a feature flag in nl80211, but it affects an RT netlink operation ... which is a bit strange. Thinking about that now, maybe it's not _that_ bad? Especially given that "live" can mean different things (as discussed here), and for wireless that doesn't necessarily mean IFF_UP, but rather something like "IFF_UP + not active". Jakub, what do you think? (I'll also note you also have error handling problems in your patch, so if/when you revive, please take a look at handling errors from add and remove interface. Also indentation, and a comment on station/p2p-client might be good, and the scanning check is wrong, can check scan_sdata regardless of the iftype.) johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists