netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] wifi: nl80211: Add support for plumbing SAE groups to driver

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: <6eaab8fa-f62e-4f78-9cbe-9b13e3d77ca7@broadcom.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:19:01 +0100
From: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
 Vinayak Yadawad <vinayak.yadawad@...adcom.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, jithu.jance@...adcom.com,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] wifi: nl80211: Add support for plumbing SAE groups to
 driver

On 2/13/2024 12:45 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 12:13 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>>
>> I recall the rule was that nl80211 API changes
>> should also have at least one driver implementing it. Guess we let that
>> slip a couple of times. I fully agree enforcing this.
> 
> Well, enforcing it strictly never really worked all that well in
> practice, since you don't necessarily want to have a complex driver
> implementation while hashing out the API, and the API fundamentally has
> to come first.
> 
> So in a sense it comes down to trust, and that people will actually
> follow up with implementations. And yeah, plans can change and you end
> up not really supporting everything that was defined ... that's life, I
> guess.
> 
> But the mode here seems to be that there's not even any _intent_ to do
> that?
> 
> I guess we could hash out the API, review the patches, and then _not_
> apply them until a driver is ready? So the first round of reviews would
> still come with API only, but once that settles we don't actually merge
> it immediately, unlike normally where we merge a patch we've reviewed?
> And then if whoever did it lost interest, we already have a reviewed
> version for anyone else who might need it?

Sounds like a plan. Maybe they can get a separate state in patchwork and 
let them sit there for grabs.

Gr. AvS


Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4219 bytes)