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]

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 14:50:30 +0200
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,  Vinayak Yadawad
 <vinayak.yadawad@...adcom.com>,  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

Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> writes:

> 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.

I belong to the church of 'Clean Inbox' so I use 'Deferred' state for
stuff I can't work on right now. Though I know a lot of people don't
like it because deferred patches are not shown in the default patchwok
view.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches