Re: [PATCH] brcmfmac: drop Inter-Access Point Protocol packets by default

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen-OTpzqLSitTUnbdJkjeBofR2eb7JE58TQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:08:48 +0200
Kalle Valo <kvalo-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> writes:
> 
> > On 3/14/2018 3:24 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:  
> >>> +config BRCMFMAC_IAPP  
> >>> >+	bool "Partial support for obsoleted Inter-Access Point Protocol"
> >>> >+	depends on BRCMFMAC
> >>> >+	---help---
> >>> >+	  Most of Broadcom's firmwares can send 802.11f ADD frame every
> >>> >+	  time new STA connects to the AP interface. Some recent ones
> >>> >+	  can also disassociate STA when they receive such a frame.
> >>> >+
> >>> >+	  It's important to understand this behavior can lead to a local
> >>> >+	  DoS security issue. Attacker may trigger disassociation of any
> >>> >+	  STA by sending a proper Ethernet frame to the wireless
> >>> >+	  interface.
> >>> >+
> >>> >+	  Moreover this feature may break AP interfaces in some specific
> >>> >+	  setups. This applies e.g. to the bridge with hairpin mode
> >>> >+	  enabled and IFLA_BRPORT_MCAST_TO_UCAST set. IAPP packet
> >>> >+	  generated by a firmware will get passed back to the wireless
> >>> >+	  interface and cause immediate disassociation of just-connected
> >>> >+	  STA.  
> >> Sorry for jumping late, but does it really make sense to have a Kconfig
> >> option for this? I don't think we should add a Kconfig option for every
> >> strange feature, there should be stronger reasons (size savings etc)
> >> before adding a Kconfig option.
> >>
> >> And in this case the size savings can't be much. Wouldn't a module
> >> parameter be simpler for a functionality change like this?  
> >
> > Hi Kalle,
> >
> > Good to be wary about Kconfig option.  
> 
> I think Linus doesn't like pointless Kconfig options, me neither for
> that matter, so I try to make sure the justifications are really there
> before adding anything new.
> 
> > So my reason for asking a Kconfig option is that this is directly in
> > the datapaths (tx and rx) so I prefer to disable/enable it compile
> > time rather then runtime.  
> 
> I'm no cpu profile expert but is really one (or two?) if checks of a
> cached variable in the datapath really measurable? My guess is that it's
> just noise in the results.
> 
> But I'm not going to argue about it, if you think it's still needed I'm
> fine with that. Just mention in the commit log the justification the new
> Kconfig option.


If you have to disable it a module parameter is not a complete disaster