netdev - Re: [PATCH wpan-next v4 07/11] mac802154: Handle association requests from peers

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: <20230927174037.25708dec@xps-13>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 17:40:37 +0200
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com>
Cc: 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 v4 07/11] mac802154: Handle association
 requests from peers

Hi Alexander,

aahringo@...hat.com wrote on Tue, 26 Sep 2023 21:37:23 -0400:

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:51 AM Miquel Raynal
> <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Coordinators may have to handle association requests from peers which
> > want to join the PAN. The logic involves:
> > - Acknowledging the request (done by hardware)
> > - If requested, a random short address that is free on this PAN should
> >   be chosen for the device.
> > - Sending an association response with the short address allocated for
> >   the peer and expecting it to be ack'ed.
> >
> > If anything fails during this procedure, the peer is considered not
> > associated.  
> 
> I thought a coordinator can also reject requests for _any_ reason and
> it's very user specific whatever that reason is.

Absolutely.

> If we have such a case (that it is very user specific what to do
> exactly) this should be able to be controlled by the user space to
> have there a logic to tell the kernel to accept or reject the
> association.

Agreed (not implemented yet, though).

> However, I am fine with this solution, but I think we might want to
> change this behaviour in the future so that an application in the user
> space has the logic to tell the kernel to accept or reject an
> association. That would make sense?

Definitely, yes.

Thanks,
Miquèl