Search Linux Wireless

Re: [PATCH] nl80211: Reject disconnect commands except from conn_owner

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On 8 May 2018 at 14:19, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 14:18 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> On 5/7/2018 9:19 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2018-04-29 at 20:30 +0200, Andrew Zaborowski wrote:
>> > > On 28 April 2018 at 15:07, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > > Andrew Zaborowski <andrew.zaborowski@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > > > > Reject NL80211_CMD_DISCONNECT, NL80211_CMD_DISASSOCIATE,
>> > > > > NL80211_CMD_DEAUTHENTICATE and NL80211_CMD_ASSOCIATE commands
>> > > > > from clients other than the connection owner set in the connect,
>> > > > > authenticate or associate commands, if it was set.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The main point of this check is to prevent chaos when two processes
>> > > > > try to use nl80211 at the same time, it's not a security measure.
>> > > > > The same thing should possibly be done for JOIN_IBSS/LEAVE_IBSS and
>> > > > > START_AP/STOP_AP.
>> > > >
>> > > > s-o-b missing.
>> > >
>> > > True, thanks.  Also I was going to send this as an RFC.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Looks fine to me, please resend if you want it in :)
>>
>> Do we really want this? Is the referred chaos hypothetical or an actual
>> issue. Nothing stops me from doing an 'ifconfig down' so why should 'iw
>> disconnect' be any different. As far I can tell it does not affect my
>> testing environment, but particularly in such use-cases I can expect
>> issues adopting this change, which is also hypothetical of course ;-)
>
> Yeah, it's a good question. But it might help with inadvertent issues,
> like starting wpa_s which immediately disconnects if it finds something
> connected. If that fails, perhaps you have a better chance of noticing
> the error?

This patch was only motivated by a case of running both iwd and
wpa_supplicant simultaneously by mistake.  They can both handle things
like 'ifconfig down', but when one daemon tries to connect the other
immediately commands a disconnect (makes sense) and it made us think
whether it was more correct if that disconnect command failed.  I'm
not really sure what's right here so I wanted to float this idea.

Best regards



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Network]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Wireless Regulations]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux