On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 14:32 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Hi, > > More thoughts on rfkill ... > > So we were thinking it would be sensible to just force interfaces down > on rfkill, which is of course possible, and then reject attempts to set > the interface UP while killed. > > There's just one problem with that -- when you un-rfkill, does the > kernel set interfaces UP again? > > If not -- how would we possibly handle 'iwconfig .. txpower off'? We're > mostly handling it like rfkill now afaict, but 'iwconfig .. txpower on' > wouldn't be able to do anything properly. > > If yes -- how do we know which interfaces to set UP? However we turn it, > userspace can then not disable an interface regardless of rfkill state, > which gets really confusing. > > Therefore, I don't think we can simply set interfaces down on rfkill > with the current scheme. > > On the other hand, the interfaces really are dysfunctional in rfkill and > we really need more integration. > > > I'm happy to give up on 'iwconfig wlan0 txpower on/off' entirely, simply > refuse supporting it (return -EINVAL if txpower.disabled) and then use > the first scheme where rfkill forces the interface down but userspace is > responsible for enabling it again. This is asymmetric, but I don't see > what else to do. That proposal sounds fine to me from a userspace perspective. Sane implementations don't assume the interface is IFF_UP when they configure the device anyway (since it's not necessarily up at boot time or after hibernate for example), and since you need a reconfigure after rfkill, this seems reasonable. You wouldn't have to give up on txpower either, you could simply map 'txpower off' to SW-rfkill, and 'txpower on' to un-SW-rfkill, where of course the interface would be !IFF_UP after 'txpower on' just like flipping the killswitch would. Dan -- 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
