wifi command set secrecy - why?

Am 28.11.21 um 22:19 schrieb Rick C:
> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 5:08:13 PM UTC-4, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 28/11/2021 14.52, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:


>>>>> All wifi chipsets I have seen - and I have probably looked at any maker
>>>>> over the years - are quite explicit they come with "drivers for windows,
>>>>> Linux" etc. These drivers are what talks to the firmware of course,
>>>>> which is what the secrecy is about.
>>>>
>>>> But Linux doesn't use those drivers, that's my point.
>>>>
>>>> All drivers in the Linux kernel must be added in source form. Binaries
>>>> are not accepted.

The drivers are not part of the the kernel.


>>> Wherever the binaries for the wifi chipsets are added they are not
>>> open source, that much is obvious. Without these binaries linux can
>>> run - without wifi.
>> Not true. I run Linux without any binary only wifi driver.

So what. I run Linux with a binary only Nvidia graphics driver.
The reverse-engineered attempt called Nouveau does not cut it.

Gerhard

On 11/28/2021 23:19, Rick C wrote:
> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 5:08:13 PM UTC-4, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 28/11/2021 14.52, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2021 15:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 26/11/2021 20.50, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>>> On 11/26/2021 20:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/11/2021 13.06, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/26/2021 12:27, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25/11/2021 19.40, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have been looking for some wifi chip(set) to be able to use in our
>>>>>>>>> systems and it has turned out it is impossible to get one which is
>>>>>>>>> documented in a way we could write our own driver so our tcp/ip
>>>>>>>>> stack under dps would treat it as yet another medium, like it does
>>>>>>>>> with Ethernet or via PPP and sort of.
>>>>>>>>> What I don't get is *why* do they keep things so secret? When wifi
>>>>>>>>> was starting there was some PRISM hardware which had been
>>>>>>>>> documented;
>>>>>>>>> at some point it was bought and *all* documentation was carefully
>>>>>>>>> made extinct. Now all you can buy are modules which will do the
>>>>>>>>> tcp/ip
>>>>>>>>> for you, you can only ask for a tcp connection *they* will make and
>>>>>>>>> maintain etc.
>>>>>>>>> Why is that, does anybody know? I am trying to understand the
>>>>>>>>> motivation
>>>>>>>>> of those who pull the strings to keep these data so secret, perhaps
>>>>>>>>> if I once understand it I can advance a step closer. I am really
>>>>>>>>> reluctant to spend a year of my life writing my firmware for
>>>>>>>>> some wifi radio (these can be bought), not least because I have
>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>> things to do with the active years I can hope to have left.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have a look at the Linux driver if it exists. They usually
>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer the needed specs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These drivers are not open source, not for the part that matters.
>>>>>>> The reverse engineered part is available IIRC, but what I try to
>>>>>>> understand is *why* do they (and I) have to reverse engineer
>>>>>>> what the likes of microsoft and android makers have access to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Linux drivers are open source (whether they are documented
>>>>>> enough or what you want, is another matter).
>>>>>> If the makers do their own closed source driver for Linux, that's
>>>>>> their driver, not the Linux driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> All wifi chipsets I have seen - and I have probably looked at any maker
>>>>> over the years - are quite explicit they come with "drivers for windows,
>>>>> Linux" etc. These drivers are what talks to the firmware of course,
>>>>> which is what the secrecy is about.
>>>>
>>>> But Linux doesn't use those drivers, that's my point.
>>>>
>>>> All drivers in the Linux kernel must be added in source form. Binaries
>>>> are not accepted.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wherever the binaries for the wifi chipsets are added they are not
>>> open source, that much is obvious. Without these binaries linux can
>>> run - without wifi.
>> Not true. I run Linux without any binary only wifi driver.
>>> Had there been any useful sources I would have seen them long ago.
>> Then you didn't look deep enough...
> 
> So there are wifi drivers under Linux for only certain chips?  If I buy a laptop intending to run Linux I need to know whether the wifi chip is supported or not, yes?
> 

Generally no, it is just that some (as it appears, I have yet to dig
through that again) have "binaries" (closed source) parts.
The list Lasse posted a link to suggests there are wifi modules with
completely open source firmware interfaces (but I have yet to dig
there, I still find it hard to believe there are driver sources
and zero documentation online on what was needed to write these
drivers).

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 5:32:34 PM UTC-4, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
> Am 28.11.21 um 22:19 schrieb Rick C:
> > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 5:08:13 PM UTC-4, Carlos E.R. wrote: 
> >> On 28/11/2021 14.52, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: 
> 
> 
> >>>>> All wifi chipsets I have seen - and I have probably looked at any maker 
> >>>>> over the years - are quite explicit they come with "drivers for windows, 
> >>>>> Linux" etc. These drivers are what talks to the firmware of course, 
> >>>>> which is what the secrecy is about. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> But Linux doesn't use those drivers, that's my point. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> All drivers in the Linux kernel must be added in source form. Binaries 
> >>>> are not accepted.
> The drivers are not part of the the kernel.

Then how does the kernel communicate with the user? 

-- 

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209 

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 6:56:15 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> On 11/28/2021 23:19, Rick C wrote: 
> > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 5:08:13 PM UTC-4, Carlos E.R. wrote: 
> >> On 28/11/2021 14.52, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> Wherever the binaries for the wifi chipsets are added they are not 
> >>> open source, that much is obvious. Without these binaries linux can 
> >>> run - without wifi. 
> >> Not true. I run Linux without any binary only wifi driver. 
> >>> Had there been any useful sources I would have seen them long ago. 
> >> Then you didn't look deep enough... 
> > 
> > So there are wifi drivers under Linux for only certain chips? If I buy a laptop intending to run Linux I need to know whether the wifi chip is supported or not, yes? 
> >
> Generally no, it is just that some (as it appears, I have yet to dig 
> through that again) have "binaries" (closed source) parts. 
> The list Lasse posted a link to suggests there are wifi modules with 
> completely open source firmware interfaces (but I have yet to dig 
> there, I still find it hard to believe there are driver sources 
> and zero documentation online on what was needed to write these 
> drivers).

Then the answer is YES because I would otherwise be taking a risk of buying a laptop with no Linux drivers... well, no open source drivers.  Do any graphics chips not provide a binary blob for Linux?  Are they typically bug free?  I guess that's a stupid question. 

-- 

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Le 25/11/2021 à 19:40, Dimiter_Popoff a écrit :
> I have been looking for some wifi chip(set) to be able to use in our
> systems and it has turned out it is impossible to get one which is
> documented in a way we could write our own driver so our tcp/ip
> stack under dps would treat it as yet another medium, like it does
> with Ethernet or via PPP and sort of.
> What I don't get is *why* do they keep things so secret? When wifi
> was starting there was some PRISM hardware which had been documented;
> at some point it was bought and *all* documentation was carefully
> made extinct. Now all you can buy are modules which will do the tcp/ip
> for you, you can only ask for a tcp connection *they* will make and
> maintain etc.
> Why is that, does anybody know? I am trying to understand the motivation
> of those who pull the strings to keep these data so secret, perhaps
> if I once understand it I can advance a step closer. I am really
> reluctant to spend a year of my life writing my firmware for
> some wifi radio (these can be bought), not least because I have better
> things to do with the active years I can hope to have left.
Having total control of devices radiating RF would be a nightmare
There will be lots of jammers and out of band usage.