From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 888321482E1; Thu, 30 Jan 2025 21:13:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738271603; cv=none; b=bJS158E5Uq3Zkfud984c0V5GWIzI8iDWXAvINHM94m+aq3ilzqI04xddp9I0WXgYhNKICiscEO7nZE+D+iifvdF8nS2R40Ss3iIzxTjF+o214NG3WppmxiEJLq/UF2/CiWuQBQSevKtCcoX6Hn0bHHczAB3dZ6Cd3fTfv/cMTag= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738271603; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GX4xYuXDevv2ccW6nS1G33S+5+WkoXuAQbeugMn5myE=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=IE91PSLBwln+L1ARQCQc8EmDQPH0DnfoLoHMar4c5VVSjlhffAKg2OXruyZtuKOlTwPCFi3/bhiTVA1/RqsO0iAgHazW1/bz3ZUF2MBUNkoBT2wOuucNRilefUPizfZO+F0+tSGLxjaXez3g25ecP3bpBJHBpDT6EHbSise8Z3o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=Te2avAFI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="Te2avAFI" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=GX4xYuXDevv2ccW6nS1G33S+5+WkoXuAQbeugMn5myE=; t=1738271601; x=1739481201; b=Te2avAFIgSoX8OnHsQucu9+phAds/sxTDmVLcfK5x42E2+F mYlQQdiH90SdYWBPO7oN8Y/CQLXXyLPM5WRI0IEaGJPwon/AxGfpDtdQ74TBD+vXSk0/fjRsgS4Kw PciRrtR0DM0IG2NCylscrgRt97b426Zm318kcXEGIXRuALaikkSDiHweE1DXQvYakToplh9LLnNef f7LaOEHvGnOzbT/NUdoRnRMzw/DkmynWMaT7q+XSCxxsynxEloEStZD5go2PBkfFhC+90W2Dx2Pw+ Tmmlm52caJlAS83YvT8/+bNMehEarLt+CHLAVx1X9TjLyGwb59URF1ZY/N27CNfA==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1tdbqd-0000000FKUL-2hHg; Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:13:15 +0100 Message-ID: <49fe46c6a158873cdc6593b0d5630b62a59ed059.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [lvc-project] [PATCH] wifi: nl80211: override all other flags if MONITOR_FLAG_COOK_FRAMES is set From: Johannes Berg To: Fedor Pchelkin Cc: Vitaliy Shevtsov , lvc-project@linuxtesting.org, Michael Wu , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzbot+2e5c1e55b9e5c28a3da7@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:13:14 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20250130123432.4534-1-v.shevtsov@mt-integration.ru> <14c5edc71a74049c49d51960249b0aefc77208be.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.54.3 (3.54.3-1.fc41) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Thu, 2025-01-30 at 22:23 +0300, Fedor Pchelkin wrote: >=20 > Do you suggest rejecting to set MONITOR_FLAG_COOK_FRAMES overall? No and yes :) No for the context of this patch. Yes in general. > Wouldn't it break existing userspace, especially in context of systems > running old stable kernels where the patch is also needed? >=20 > There is still some usage of this flag in hostap [1]. Theoretically, but I just commented on that here: https://lore.kernel.org/r/a49e58998553c45953a30243ad1957c06ce6db8c.camel@si= psolutions.net tl;dr: only ancient hostapd versions will actually _use_ it, and they have to fall into a relatively narrow range (April 2009 - Dec 2011.) > Or your suggestion is to explicitly reject setting MONITOR_FLAG_COOK_FRAM= ES > only when it is passed combined with some other flags which it is > incompatible with? Yes. > Btw, the fragment [2] says the cooked flag overrides the other ones. > But it was written a long time ago so many things have changed I guess. Indeed, that doesn't really make sense (certainly not any longer.) > [1]: https://w1.fi/cgit/hostap/tree/src/drivers/driver_nl80211.c#n6209 And that was almost certainly the only user that ever existed, and can only set the flag by itself. johannes