Hi Johannes! I will prepare patch which does not send NETLINK_URELEASE for unbound sockets as you suggest. But I think protocol check in nl80211 is still needed because port_id is unique per-protocol. On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Dmitrijs, > > Thanks for reporting this problem. > >> The patch below corrects this problem in kernel space. > > I don't think that this is correct, there are four more users of > NETLINK_URELEASE (nfnetlink, NFC), and afaict all of them have the same > bug as nl80211. > > Rather than fix all of them, I think we should simply not report > NETLINK_URELEASE for netlink sockets that weren't bound; if any user > comes up that requires them later we could add a new event instead. > > I can't find what commit introduced this code, it goes back before git > history, so I don't have the commit log. Maybe it was done for > nfnetlink log/queue? Certainly both nl80211 and NFC are much newer. > >> Also, it is >> recommended to ensure that user-space applications are not using >> user-supplied port_id for netlink sockets (which is default in >> libnl-tiny for example). > > This I think we should remove from the commit log - it's misleading and > there's no point. > > johannes > -- 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
