On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 13:25 -0700, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > isn't this dangerous to just allow writing to wiphy.perm_addr via > sysfs. We ran into the same issue with Bluetooth and ROM only devices > that have to unique address. Doing this via sysfs seems the wrong > approach. It is messy and full of potential race conditions. I clearly > opted against the sysfs solution for Bluetooth. Instead we build an > infrastructure that allowed doing it cleanly via the Bluetooth mgmt > API. Controllers that have no unique address are brought up as > unconfigured and userspace clearly knows that it has to take steps to > get an address programmed into the controller. My inclination is to agree; however, this does not exist for WiFi and implementing it would require modifying every single driver. > And I think something similar should be done for WiFi. It might be > better to not create the initial wlan0 netdev interface if the > hardware has not a single unique address available. That way the > supplicant can just either get one from the flash filesystem or make > up a proper random one before creating the netdev interface. > The initial wlan0 netdev interface is *not* created, but the PHY records a MAC address that cannot be overriden at the level that this sysfs node reads. Perhaps a compromise would be to create a single new syscall to write to it? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
