Apparently there actually _are_ tools that try to set
this in sysfs even though it wasn't supposed to be used
this way without claiming first. Guess what: now that
I've cleaned it all up it doesn't matter and we can
simply allow setting the soft-block state in sysfs.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
*shrug*, I don't like it, but whatever...
Please test & report.
net/rfkill/core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--- wireless-testing.orig/net/rfkill/core.c 2009-07-10 21:29:10.000000000 +0200
+++ wireless-testing/net/rfkill/core.c 2009-07-10 21:36:31.000000000 +0200
@@ -648,15 +648,26 @@ static ssize_t rfkill_state_store(struct
struct device_attribute *attr,
const char *buf, size_t count)
{
- /*
- * The intention was that userspace can only take control over
- * a given device when/if rfkill-input doesn't control it due
- * to user_claim. Since user_claim is currently unsupported,
- * we never support changing the state from userspace -- this
- * can be implemented again later.
- */
+ struct rfkill *rfkill = to_rfkill(dev);
+ unsigned long state;
+ int err;
+
+ if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
+ return -EPERM;
+
+ err = strict_strtoul(buf, 0, &state);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+
+ if (state != RFKILL_USER_STATE_SOFT_BLOCKED &&
+ state != RFKILL_USER_STATE_UNBLOCKED)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex);
+ rfkill_set_block(rfkill, state == RFKILL_USER_STATE_SOFT_BLOCKED);
+ mutex_unlock(&rfkill_global_mutex);
- return -EPERM;
+ return err ?: count;
}
static ssize_t rfkill_claim_show(struct device *dev,
--
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
