On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:00:14PM +0200, Alexander Aring wrote: > 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. > What I meant here is something like [0]. We simple let the config add the end of all declaration, if we add something to mainline then we put it out of the #ifdef foo. (Above the comments) If we do that then the CONFIG_NL802154_EXPERIMENTAL will be broken afterwards and the userspace tool need to be updated. Without CONFIG_NL802154_EXPERIMENTAL it should always be the same. Just the NL802154_CMD_MAX and NL802154_ATTR_MAX will be a lesser value than without CONFIG_NL802154_EXPERIMENTAL. The internal nl802154 framework should not react on these definitions then, if somebody tries to use CMD's/ATTR's which are inside CONFIG_NL802154_EXPERIMENTAL. With CONFIG_NL802154_EXPERIMENTAL then the user need to care about to user the right userspace nl802154 header in their application. - Alex [0] https://github.com/linux-wpan/linux-wpan-next/commit/4522252b9964227d1a3ce0b09c1aa0a6d95c3ba1 -- 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
