Hi, On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 04:34:42PM +0100, Simon Vincent wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Do you have your security/nl802154 work available anywhere I can have a > look? > I am in the process of getting 802.15.4 security working on our devices. I > don't want to implement it using the old interface as I will then have to > recode our application when llsec moves over to nl802154. I think what we do at first is a 1:1 implementation of the old interface and the new interface and then look what we can change afterwards if needed. We introduce then some CONFIG_NL802154_EXPERIMENTAL to change the enum definition (with security and without). I think then we are somehow safe to still change the netlink interface, inside kernelspace, afterwards. > I have some spare time at the moment to develop/review/test the security > layer. > Too bad I have at the moment really nothing which you can test/review maybe we can do some split working of development tasks, but I don't have the overview at the moment to split anything. For general I would say somebody can do the userspace side and another one can do the kernelspace side. At the end we trying to fit anything together. For me it's _very_ important that the userspace side should not have some big mechanism to setup the kernelspace stuff. We should provide some config file to setup the most part, instead doing iwpan calls over command line. Phoebe also reported that we need to save the current dump of the whole security information in case of a reboot and restore them afterwards again. (e.g. the frame counter attribute). This all smells more like a daemon which running in the background and deals with some configfiles and states (dumping security tables in case of reboot). - Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wpan" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
