From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2645AC7618B for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:07:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0307D21850 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:07:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727195AbfGZOHl (ORCPT ); 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