On Tue, 2025-07-15 at 11:18 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2025-07-15 at 19:12 +1000, Lachlan Hodges wrote: > > > > > > > > Is that really worth it? We don't have to protect userspace from > > > shooting it self into the foot _too_ much, just make sure that we don't > > > get into a mess in the kernel itself. As long as the elements are not > > > malformed, I'd argue we're fine from a kernel perspective? > > > > > > This also prevents future updates and experimentation, and I see little > > > value in it? > > > > In that case, would you have any opposition to using the regular > > validate_beacon_head and validate_ie_attr for short beacon validation? > > No, don't think so, though I didn't check now that > validate_beacon_head() can deal with the differently sized non-element > fields in the different formats, but I suppose it could just do that. Maybe that came out confusing, to clarify, I have no objection assuming it handles the different formats :) I don't even think it would be relevant to force the short beacon to be short and the long beacon to be long since we already have a mix of the three beacon formats everywhere, and all the code now (since your fixes) handles all the possible formats/permutations thereof. johannes
