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 18DD92D7DD7; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 06:23:22 +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=1776839005; cv=none; b=nzajB8fU+FAEAGPGz7TBwSUKu3p5TpZTSf+/AIKWklk3jqYKA5M7BLHLmRx/jx/xZ/f2JUUG97l+l06JORkkj/xpVvuGiGaWJAfzyzacSFgS3AErYAJM3yW+fsH7NLUBl3DVjvhu/AGXJnzHzvkWexEzv05ncL3IGdauJv3I/l4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776839005; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tZrsGnogjpuzH60NrnfUUr8k6szbpD2LTNullhMJUC0=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=m6WBa0vz3BsR6WPFKdYHPVafajiTvQT6hH9wjwg1dd4tBWS4P+S7xVz2Kbh47HGO0Aa9+sbqjvwhxSDCawDFaA1TMH1YXaSyK9tiTkchK8yUncwi2ykQmPCwC9UeuaQOb5prshK5GzeVziSzb50jXbroqhJgjrXdsBx092k1/rE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=x5dZ+h4C; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none 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="x5dZ+h4C" 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=p6y/NiW8TSM4diWr1vLU4U7/Xr0/bik8HlZc6tK1KcY=; t=1776839003; x=1778048603; b=x5dZ+h4CSd0Yxtrid7SEWFYPnjmOXXzEopFyMxmW2FFdAOp XJiKAYk+x5t+OVnwIpEK+ZCGWIBomPZpL4C9Nm0vJWGJsa0i8JeF3yhwx6huAPS8oFHvbVVvzyAA4 RySY9pjpQYPOYHErlsQYKhE3BnjZOF2q60ZsNtpzrcmiqplrCIbKdglX5qKJPpl/N439PNrdpqXI9 aEzk2BqMIjp0pzxcgiGiJVMHmstLU/wjtg0W6hxLFt2I9kzAT64/9vO9Ws9T/b8YFOuNdBCepKZyc Re+rEo1LuUMPAdJyRsZUmsAl9Ha/WvfZw3O5o9w51ZoUnfIrfpt+/yDOBnfpGh0w==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wFQzX-000000066JF-3Mtd; Wed, 22 Apr 2026 08:23:19 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: nl80211: require admin perm on SET_PMK / DEL_PMK From: Johannes Berg To: Michael Bommarito , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Cc: Avraham Stern , Arend van Spriel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 08:23:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20260421224552.4044147-1-michael.bommarito@gmail.com> (sfid-20260422_004558_248010_38F9E184) References: <20260421224552.4044147-1-michael.bommarito@gmail.com> (sfid-20260422_004558_248010_38F9E184) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Tue, 2026-04-21 at 18:45 -0400, Michael Bommarito wrote: >=20 > Both ops were introduced without a .flags gate, so the generic > netlink layer dispatches them to an unprivileged caller instead > of rejecting with -EPERM at the permission check. Every other > connection-state op in the adjacent block (CONNECT, ASSOCIATE, > AUTHENTICATE, SET_KEY, ...) carries GENL_UNS_ADMIN_PERM; SET_PMK > / DEL_PMK were introduced without the flag in 2017 and left > unchanged by later refactors. Johannes checked the original > Intel submission history and confirmed there is no admin check > in any prior revision either, so this seems likely to be a > simple oversight rather than an intentional carve-out. FWIW, this submission did originally come from Avi, but we no longer have a driver using it (it was never upstream anyway), so that now the only affected driver is brcmfmac, AFAICT (other non-upstream drivers I wouldn't know, of course.) Arend, it does seem like the right thing to do here, but I wanted to confirm with you and thus asked Michael to CC you, what do you think? johannes