On Fri, 2007-06-07 at 12:53 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > The genetlink stuff defintely makes sense. I'll have a closer look at
> > your patches this weekend.
>
> Thanks. I know Zhang Rui will definitely appreciate that too :)
Patrick - please add an ACK from me when you review. The patches
l
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 15:37 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Earlier filtering makes sense, especially for userspace. The other
> part exceeds my wireless knowledge :)
No worries. I'll see if I can come up with a way to do earlier
filtering, but it's not actually required for the functionality. An
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 09:53 -0400, jamal wrote:
> This email captures the essence of the thread, so let me start here.
> I dont know if i read well enough all the details, but i think i have a
> good grasp of the discusion.
:)
> The DoS issue is applicable IMO to any IPC. i.e
> if i have access
jamal wrote:
>
>>Looking through the code that uses NL_NONROOT_SEND I just realised that
>>it's impossible to send multicast messages from userspace to multicast
>>groups with IDs higher than 31. That's not really good given that
>>everywhere else we handle multicast groups up to 2^32-1 :/
>
>
>
This email captures the essence of the thread, so let me start here.
I dont know if i read well enough all the details, but i think i have a
good grasp of the discusion.
To just pick on mentioned issues on the thread which i picked up:
- i think it is fairly usable by netlink to be used as an IP
Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 17:00 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>
>>Not by itself probably but a user could DoS your wireless connectivity
>>this way.
>
>
> Hmm, if anything then not the connectivity but rather the MLME i.e. it
> won't do roaming properly maybe. Maybe we shou
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 17:00 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Not by itself probably but a user could DoS your wireless connectivity
> this way.
Hmm, if anything then not the connectivity but rather the MLME i.e. it
won't do roaming properly maybe. Maybe we should then have a way to say
that somebo
Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 16:48 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, although in both cases you have no guarantee how long its
>>going to take, someone else could be flooding the receive queue.
>>For userspace this is more likely to be a real problem though
>>since the kern
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 16:48 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Yes, although in both cases you have no guarantee how long its
> going to take, someone else could be flooding the receive queue.
> For userspace this is more likely to be a real problem though
> since the kernel will keep processing the
Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 16:30 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>I wonder if thats really a good idea to use multicast for device
>>configuration. Unicast transmissions from userspace to kernel
>>are reliable when you don't use MSG_DONTWAIT. For multicasts
>>doing the same woul
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 16:30 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
[...]
> The kernel doesn't have any multicast listeners (yet).
Right.
> I wonder if thats really a good idea to use multicast for device
> configuration. Unicast transmissions from userspace to kernel
> are reliable when you don't use MSG
Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 16:12 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>Johannes Berg wrote:
>>
>>>Hey,
>>>
>>>Looking through the code that uses NL_NONROOT_SEND I just realised that
>>>it's impossible to send multicast messages from userspace to multicast
>>>groups with IDs higher th
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 16:12 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > Looking through the code that uses NL_NONROOT_SEND I just realised that
> > it's impossible to send multicast messages from userspace to multicast
> > groups with IDs higher than 31. That's not really
Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Looking through the code that uses NL_NONROOT_SEND I just realised that
> it's impossible to send multicast messages from userspace to multicast
> groups with IDs higher than 31. That's not really good given that
> everywhere else we handle multicast groups up to 2^
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 16:04 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:51:25PM +0200, Johannes Berg ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > Does anybody have any better ideas?
> Why don't you want to reserve a set of bits in group number, which means
> 'allow to work with unpriveledged
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:51:25PM +0200, Johannes Berg ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Does anybody have any better ideas?
Hi Johannes.
Why don't you want to reserve a set of bits in group number, which means
'allow to work with unpriveledged users', that bits should not cross existing
users (ha
16 matches
Mail list logo
