netdev - Re: [PATCH v5] wifi: rsi: Fix handling of 802.3 EAPOL frames sent via control port

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, 9 Nov 2022 19:17:35 +0100
From:   Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Angus Ainslie <angus@...ea.ca>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Martin Fuzzey <martin.fuzzey@...wbird.group>,
        Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>,
        Prameela Rani Garnepudi <prameela.j04cs@...il.com>,
        Sebastian Krzyszkowiak <sebastian.krzyszkowiak@...i.sm>,
        Siva Rebbagondla <siva8118@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] wifi: rsi: Fix handling of 802.3 EAPOL frames sent via
 control port

On 11/9/22 17:20, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de> writes:
> 
>> On 11/7/22 14:54, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de> writes:
>>>
>>>>> BTW did you test this on a real device?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, SDIO RS9116 on next-20221104 and 5.10.153 .
>>>
>>> Very good, thanks.
>>>
>>>> What prompts this question ?
>>>
>>> I get too much "fixes" which have been nowhere near real hardware and
>>> can break the driver instead of fixing anything, especially syzbot
>>> patches have been notorious. So I have become cautious.
>>
>> Ah, this is a real problem right here.
>>
>> wpa-supplicant 2.9 from OE dunfell 3.1 works.
>> wpa-supplicant 2.10 from OE kirkstone 4.0 fails.
>>
>> That's how I ran into this initially. My subsequent tests were with
>> debian wpa-supplicant 2.9 and 2.10 packages, since that was easier,
>> they (2.10 does, 2.9 does not) trigger the problem all the same.
>>
>> I'm afraid this RSI driver is so poorly maintained and has so many
>> bugs, that, there is little that can make it worse. The dealing I had
>> with RSI has been ... long ... and very depressing. I tried to get
>> documentation or anything which would help us fix the problems we have
>> with this RSI driver ourselves, but RSI refused it all and suggested
>> we instead use their downstream driver (I won't go into the quality of
>> that). It seems RSI has little interest in maintaining the upstream
>> driver, pity.
>>
>> I've been tempted to flag this driver as BROKEN for a while, to
>> prevent others from suffering with it.
> 
> That's a pity indeed. Should we at least mark the driver as orphaned in
> MAINTAINERS?
> 
> Or even better if you Marek would be willing to step up as the
> maintainer? :)

I think best mark it orphaned, to make it clear what the state of the 
driver really is.

If RSI was willing to provide documentation, or at least releases which 
are not 30k+/20k- single-all-in-one-commit dumps of code, or at least 
any help, I would consider it. But not like this.