Apparently there actually _are_ tools that try to set this in sysfs even though it wasn't supposed to be used this way without claiming first. Guess what: now that I've cleaned it all up it doesn't matter and we can simply allow setting the soft-block state in sysfs.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <[email protected]> --- *shrug*, I don't like it, but whatever... Please test & report. net/rfkill/core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) --- wireless-testing.orig/net/rfkill/core.c 2009-07-10 21:29:10.000000000 +0200 +++ wireless-testing/net/rfkill/core.c 2009-07-10 21:36:31.000000000 +0200 @@ -648,15 +648,26 @@ static ssize_t rfkill_state_store(struct struct device_attribute *attr, const char *buf, size_t count) { - /* - * The intention was that userspace can only take control over - * a given device when/if rfkill-input doesn't control it due - * to user_claim. Since user_claim is currently unsupported, - * we never support changing the state from userspace -- this - * can be implemented again later. - */ + struct rfkill *rfkill = to_rfkill(dev); + unsigned long state; + int err; + + if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN)) + return -EPERM; + + err = strict_strtoul(buf, 0, &state); + if (err) + return err; + + if (state != RFKILL_USER_STATE_SOFT_BLOCKED && + state != RFKILL_USER_STATE_UNBLOCKED) + return -EINVAL; + + mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex); + rfkill_set_block(rfkill, state == RFKILL_USER_STATE_SOFT_BLOCKED); + mutex_unlock(&rfkill_global_mutex); - return -EPERM; + return err ?: count; } static ssize_t rfkill_claim_show(struct device *dev, _______________________________________________ Debian-eeepc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-eeepc-devel
