Received: by 2002:a25:ad19:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id y25csp123796ybi; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:08:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyOQKC9HLHz5EKRZBeuJKNJPglNELyPzdn+JWXIu+9OAVNt6NJjkptbAJ+MI3FvBFdyrfd6 X-Received: by 2002:a63:184b:: with SMTP id 11mr29986038pgy.112.1564150087089; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:08:07 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1564150087; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=1DbtML8EfHBIad44EOAM0MeWvGFF592VfNgzmYVcI1Bn/0mHPx7iyhMnPbubALH+W8 Iof2XSl4a23BUHukKpz0VKAqtd1egE39I7GH2Ea3eqAfOeHBZBZ8hglfyF/XtV6A+Puk j4U2V6aN8dklFLNsz7yJkECVoC6+yri/8C5EXFJXrFmYy8SfjkbcCai7YlTUmIUdEdB/ bp/vaIDSocrhdvEW+Z87YF1H/y9+QesiZUgqKXb2/tkeFIsLkeOZvgyBqOCVS8+vB3Xl qKmQoaBAv7DLPcUYcQhMHzfVNPShAyc0DE+m+eV3/jtMpImfmhBr3u4zyCMQghQYc7k5 /zGQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject :message-id; bh=kPv5dtjgI6XLf7s++vV1V3pFFY+PcvbyJqV9M6ndr5o=; b=tJOuBJoqdjOQzj49HoMAuvWE6PZhDJyZqFNMUmYWAEJQn6IIvcJqLK0pPFzb3GRC0V 89kUcqYuyAeX1D1CwVMrrFdXxP21KOrgQO8XsPmMQYJk2u2vnvvm+udThIs2WcOcZhIl 3RSU9INUvvVrTbyRh4Aav7oPKT6011eTlizWwZk7fK30b7r4vBGdSYL24RyCo1W1a8gi KvxooO9aIvSU2Y2OWGZa0Lu3l0Dn796PmhPU6jNSD8VNKOxOMby2Y7fpbd+/NjMkpPuL 6AwRT04RWAERACzOxxgGXMdqowlS0g3CiFEcq8+DoetFsJgoUli/xsUpcr8EhpXsHPMt UF4w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a64si21246207pfb.60.2019.07.26.07.07.41; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:08:07 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727193AbfGZOHl (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:07:41 -0400 Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.62]:49628 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726364AbfGZOHl (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:07:41 -0400 Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hr0sl-0004Pa-Fy; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:07:39 +0200 Message-ID: <218afd33eda4410472c2a99624f81908cf535cb4.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: reject zero MAC address in add station From: Johannes Berg To: Karthikeyan Periyasamy Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:07:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1563959770-21570-1-git-send-email-periyasa@codeaurora.org> <0cc7d0c578b60730e77ecd03e2df240dd1b393a0.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 (3.30.5-1.fc29) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2019-07-26 at 19:36 +0530, Karthikeyan Periyasamy wrote: > > > Don't allow using a zero MAC address as the station > > > MAC address. so validated the MAC address using > > > is_valid_ether_addr. > > > > Theoretically, all zeroes might have been a valid address at some > > point. > > I see no reason not to reject it, but I'd like to know why you ended up > > with this now?? > > > > Its a Wireless fuzz testing tool (codenomicon) which sends out different > types of frames to the AP. It actually tampers legitimate wireless > frames (Probe, Auth, Assoc, Data etc..) and will send to the AP. I > thought allowing a zero MAC address station is not a valid. so validated > the given MAC address. Just for curious, which case all zero address is > a valid MAC. Well, it isn't really, but the OUI 00:00:00 *is* in fact assigned (or was), and theoretically the vendor could assign it to a device. We do assume basically everywhere that it's invalid though. Was just wondering how you came across this really, I guess I'll add a bit of text to the commit log and merge it. johannes