[Debian-eeepc-devel] [PATCH 2.6.31] rfkill: allow toggling soft state in sysfs again

[Johannes Berg]

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 <johannes at sipsolutions.net>
---
*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,