hostapd 2.7 - patches still needed?

hostapd 2.7 - patches still needed?

[Matthias Fischer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 411 bytes --]

Hi,

can anyone tell me if the 'rebased-v2.6...'-patches for 'hostapd 2.6'
are still needed in 'hostapd 2.7'?

I made a quick testrun and most of them answer with "Reversed (or
previously applied) patch detected!"

As I see it, 'hostapd-2.6-noscan.patch' should probably stay, line
numbers would have to be adjusted.

The same applies to 'hostapd-2.3_increase_EAPOL-timeouts.patch'.

Any hints?

Best,
Matthias

Re: hostapd 2.7 - patches still needed?

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 872 bytes --]

Hi,

> On 4 Mar 2019, at 12:50, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> can anyone tell me if the 'rebased-v2.6...'-patches for 'hostapd 2.6'
> are still needed in 'hostapd 2.7’?

No, those are not required any more because those vulnerabilities should be fixed in the 2.7 release.

> I made a quick testrun and most of them answer with "Reversed (or
> previously applied) patch detected!”

Indeed.

> As I see it, 'hostapd-2.6-noscan.patch' should probably stay, line
> numbers would have to be adjusted.
> 
> The same applies to 'hostapd-2.3_increase_EAPOL-timeouts.patch’.

Please keep those patches. It is fine that the lines might have moved. That is why we have patch which takes care of this. There is no need to touch them if they still apply.

Best,
-Michael

> Any hints?
> 
> Best,
> Matthias

Re: hostapd 2.7 - patches still needed?

[Arne Fitzenreiter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 833 bytes --]

On 2019-03-04 13:50, Matthias Fischer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> can anyone tell me if the 'rebased-v2.6...'-patches for 'hostapd 2.6'
> are still needed in 'hostapd 2.7'?
> 
> I made a quick testrun and most of them answer with "Reversed (or
> previously applied) patch detected!"
> 
> As I see it, 'hostapd-2.6-noscan.patch' should probably stay, line
> numbers would have to be adjusted.
This patch is needed for disabling the neighborhood scan to force HT40 
modes.

> 
> The same applies to 'hostapd-2.3_increase_EAPOL-timeouts.patch'.
This is needed for some buggy android clients that neet too long to 
wakeup so it should also stay.

The others should be rebased from the hostapd/wpa_supplicant tree and 
included in the new version.
Please update also wpa_supplicant if hostapd is updated, they should 
have matching versions.

Arne

Re: hostapd 2.7 - patches still needed?

[Matthias Fischer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1098 bytes --]

On 05.03.2019 10:36, Michael Tremer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> On 4 Mar 2019, at 12:50, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> can anyone tell me if the 'rebased-v2.6...'-patches for 'hostapd 2.6'
>> are still needed in 'hostapd 2.7’?
> 
> No, those are not required any more because those vulnerabilities should be fixed in the 2.7 release.
> 
>> I made a quick testrun and most of them answer with "Reversed (or
>> previously applied) patch detected!”
> 
> Indeed.

Thanks for the confirmation - I had suspected this.

>> As I see it, 'hostapd-2.6-noscan.patch' should probably stay, line
>> numbers would have to be adjusted.
>> 
>> The same applies to 'hostapd-2.3_increase_EAPOL-timeouts.patch’.
> 
> Please keep those patches. It is fine that the lines might have moved. That is why we have patch which takes care of this. There is no need to touch them if they still apply.

Yep - that was what I thought, too.
I built two new patches - the line numbers were a bit too far away in my
opinion.

Both applied.

Best,
Matthias

Re: hostapd 2.7 - patches still needed?

[Matthias Fischer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1173 bytes --]

Hi,

On 05.03.2019 12:32, Arne Fitzenreiter wrote:
> On 2019-03-04 13:50, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> can anyone tell me if the 'rebased-v2.6...'-patches for 'hostapd 2.6'
>> are still needed in 'hostapd 2.7'?
>> 
>> I made a quick testrun and most of them answer with "Reversed (or
>> previously applied) patch detected!"
>> 
>> As I see it, 'hostapd-2.6-noscan.patch' should probably stay, line
>> numbers would have to be adjusted.
> This patch is needed for disabling the neighborhood scan to force HT40 
> modes.

Ok - I kept this and the other patch below.

>> 
>> The same applies to 'hostapd-2.3_increase_EAPOL-timeouts.patch'.
> This is needed for some buggy android clients that neet too long to 
> wakeup so it should also stay.

Oh, I see. Adjusted. Applied.

> The others should be rebased from the hostapd/wpa_supplicant tree and 
> included in the new version.
> Please update also wpa_supplicant if hostapd is updated, they should 
> have matching versions.

I noticed that => BTDT already. ;-)

I'll sent patches for both so you can take a look. Both - 'hostapd 2.7'
and 'wpa_supplicant 2.7' - were built tonight without errors.


Best,
Matthias

Re: hostapd 2.7 - patches still needed?

[Matthias Fischer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1284 bytes --]

Hi,

Since both - 'hostapd' AND 'wpa_supplicant' - needed an update, I sent
in a patch series. Please see below "Patch 1/2 hostapd..." and "Patch
2/2 wpa_supplicant...").

Obsolete patches were deleted. I kept the two important ones.

I hope its correct this way.

Both applied here.

Best,
Matthias

On 05.03.2019 10:36, Michael Tremer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> On 4 Mar 2019, at 12:50, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> can anyone tell me if the 'rebased-v2.6...'-patches for 'hostapd 2.6'
>> are still needed in 'hostapd 2.7’?
> 
> No, those are not required any more because those vulnerabilities should be fixed in the 2.7 release.
> 
>> I made a quick testrun and most of them answer with "Reversed (or
>> previously applied) patch detected!”
> 
> Indeed.
> 
>> As I see it, 'hostapd-2.6-noscan.patch' should probably stay, line
>> numbers would have to be adjusted.
>> 
>> The same applies to 'hostapd-2.3_increase_EAPOL-timeouts.patch’.
> 
> Please keep those patches. It is fine that the lines might have moved. That is why we have patch which takes care of this. There is no need to touch them if they still apply.
> 
> Best,
> -Michael
> 
>> Any hints?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Matthias
> 
>