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: <ca517fb19f78e3c507fd315e2f30e5efa4723eb8.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:30:31 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>, 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 Tue, 2024-02-13 at 13:19 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> 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.

I guess I can leave them open as 'under review' or something? Not sure
we can add other states.

johannes