netdev - Re: [RFC 1/1] net: move IFF_LIVE_ADDR

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fe56af9da1bcca86ab8750bcadea4da7bfc768e4.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Aug 2022 12:35:22 -0700
From:   James Prestwood <prestwoj@...il.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] net: move IFF_LIVE_ADDR_CHANGE to public flag

Hi Johannes,

On Wed, 2022-08-10 at 19:17 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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.

No worries, it was a long time ago.

> 
> > 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.)

Yep, I'll get that fixed up for v2.

Thanks,
James
> 
> johannes