From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:33205 "EHLO mail-wg0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753368AbbFXOBV (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:01:21 -0400 Received: by wgck11 with SMTP id k11so37291370wgc.0 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 07:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:01:13 +0200 From: Alexander Aring Subject: Re: The 802.15.4 Security Layer Message-ID: <20150624140111.GA12381@omega> References: <20150618123154.GB6640@omega> <5582E6FA.3020101@osg.samsung.com> <5582EAAD.1090605@xsilon.com> <55831F48.4090905@osg.samsung.com> <55897C92.1060207@xsilon.com> <20150624100011.GA21293@omega> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150624100011.GA21293@omega> Sender: linux-wpan-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Simon Vincent Cc: linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org 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