On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 08:30:42AM -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > >>Or I can send you the patch if you'd like to build your own kernel. > > > > > >What about filling a bug report against the debian kernels instead ? > > > >And for your information, there where such patches inside the 2.6.7/8 > >powerpc > >kernels ages ago, but i don't know what Jens did to those, let me check the > >changelog ... Oh, i think it was this one : > > > >kernel-patch-powerpc-2.6.6 (2.6.6-5) unstable; urgency=low > >... > > * Removed the patch adding monitor mode to the Airport card driver. It > > is outdated, unstable, and was only intended as a placeholder from > > the > > very beginning. > >... > > -- Jens Schmalzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 28 May 2004 18:20:48 +0200 > > > >I guess it was older than i remembered. What about your patch, where did > >you > >get it from, and any chance of it getting upstream ? > > The only way I see this getting into Linus' tree is by someone like Ben > signing off on it. > I've gone through the code but frankly don't posses the clout nor the > experience to say that > things are legit.
Who wrote that code ? And if you do, the first step to getting it in is to ask for comment on the mailing lists, and to push for it. It may be a daunting task, as there is chance those guys will just ignore you at first, maybe a kind of selection process of waht code goes in, where code goes in only if people care enough. > From a user standpoint I can speak for its stability. I had 344 days up of > uptime on my PB > using this patch on Ben's 2.4.22 kernel. This is the same patch modified > for the 2.6 API. > I've been running it since 2.6.9 and have never experienced any serious > problems. On 2.4 the > module would loop itself if you ran kismet with the card active (interface > up). Downing the > interface would lower the reference count and then a simple rmmod would > yank the code > without a problem. Since then I just make sure I let kismet bring the > interface up on it's > own. I haven't tried this with any 2.6 kernel because I just assumed that > in order to enter > promiscuous mode, the card should be inactive from the start. > > Still all in all, I would recommend this patch to anyone with that one > simple warning. And > it could be kismet and not the module. Like I said I can remove the module > which doesn't > seem indicative of a serious problem inside kernel space. So what makes me > think the module > code loops? Well I can see printks on my terminal that show the module is > in some type of > loop and the CPU goes though the roof. > > The patch came from http://airsnort.shmoo.com/orinocoinfo.html Ok, could you perhaps contact the authors and ask them about upstream status ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
