netdev - Re: [PATCH wpan-next 0/2] ieee802154: Beaconing support

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:   Fri, 27 Jan 2023 20:57:08 -0500
From:   Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com>
To:     Michael Richardson <mcr@...delman.ca>
Cc:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>,
        Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>,
        linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 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>,
        Guilhem Imberton <guilhem.imberton@...vo.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH wpan-next 0/2] ieee802154: Beaconing support

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 2:52 PM Michael Richardson <mcr@...delman.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com> wrote:
>     >> - MLME ops without feedback constraints like beacons -> should go
>     >> through the hot path, but not through the whole net stack, so
>     >> ieee802154_subif_start_xmit()
>     >>
>
>     > it will bypass the qdisc handling (+ some other things which are around
>     > there). The current difference is what I see llsec handling and other
>     > things which might be around there? It depends if other "MLME-ops" need
>     > to be e.g. encrypted or not.
>
> I haven't followed the whole thread.
> So I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just clarifying.
> Useful beacons are "signed" (have integrity applied), but not encrypted.
>

I see. But that means they need to be going through llsec, just the
payload isn't encrypted and the MIC is appended to provide integrity.

> It's important for userspace to be able to receive them, even if we don't
> have a key that can verify them.  AFAIK, we have no specific interface to
> receive beacons.
>

This can be done over multiple ways. Either over a socket
communication or if they appear rarely we can put them into a netlink
event. In my opinion we already put that in a higher level API in
passive scan to interpret the receiving of a beacon on kernel level
and trigger netlink events.

I am not sure how HardMAC transceivers handle them on the transceiver
side only or if they ever provide them to the next layer or not?
For SoftMAC you can actually create a AF_PACKET raw socket, and you
should see everything which bypass hardware address filters and kernel
filters. Then an application can listen to them.

- Alex