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: <CAK-6q+gzgVuQViEC=uBXDtz8wqPBaf9Je5TywHB9n35L1ZqAzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 20:19:42 -0400
From: Alexander Aring <aahringo@...hat.com>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.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,

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:40 AM Miquel Raynal
<miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

ok, thanks to have some agreement here for the future.

- Alex