I'd guess that's what the DMA API is for and drivers shouldn't be doing cache maintenance by hand, but I'm not a kernel dev, so maybe I'm missing something.
But what really shocked me is how amazing GL.Inet support is. I think they're probably the best support people I've come across, helping me track down an issue I've had for months with an Aqara doorbell that intermittently goes offline, suggesting configuration changes, even logging into my router (with my permission) to diagnose things. Don't have to register an account in any support system or forum either, can do everything over email. Complete opposite to pretty much every networking vendor I've encountered both low end and enterprise.
This is exactly why I want to migrate to a OpenWRT router, companies should not just be able to hop in my network like this. And I'd love to like the Flint 3 I stayed away from it because it didn't have upstream openwrt compatibility but I just saw this repo that might fix my issue: perceival/openwrt-flint3
Not surprised by the driver software quality issues. When I was still working in consumer electronics / embedded, I saw many examples of the internals of those devices. The software was often a hodgepodge of scripts and drivers, whatever seemed to work, from companies without a great software and details culture.
We would usually rewrite the drivers entirely from the datasheets or from reversing the vendor ones!
This is funny to read. Either you can be more "verified" than the other guy, or it's badly implemented.
Also imagine having the gall to push a class of technology on the world that dramatically drives up the number of attacks, then refusing to allow said products to be used defensively to avoid the consequences. Who do these people actually think they're kidding?
It's good that this is a competitive industry. So you don't have to moralise Anthropic so much.
FYI it may be against anthropic's ToS to talk to claude like that [0]. Please be nicer to poor claude and don't forget to say "please" and "thank you".
[0] https://www.anthropic.com/news/2026-usage-policy-update#:~:t...
> It does not apply to common versions of user frustration, pushback, dark creative themes, or model testing and research.
I said "No, do X. Research it. Y is based on wrong assumptions"
Thing did the research. Concluded with "Yes, indeed, Y was wrong"
Work is done
Turns out it did Y. But not just that. When asked about it, it not just (as LLMs do) made stories as to why, but "stood its ground" so to say.
"Refusing to perform regret", general snark and all that.
I know there is nothing really new or noteworthy in this comment or story, but I continue to be impressed by how misaligned the models of the company are, that can't stop talking about how incredibly important alignment is.
To the point where they now want to make it illegal (slice by slice) to push back against the clear and obvious misalignment of their models.
If you talk to people outside the industry about this, they just think you're telling them a made-up story. It's utterly absurd.
Like guys, come on. Really? All the "filter" has to do is read my transcript to figure out that what I'm doing is not actually cybersecurity adjacent at all. I had to go have GPT implement the server because Claude refused. Truly, Claude really did prevent something terrible from happening! /s
Impressive capabilities shown on benchmarks don't really make a difference if you can't use them. I'll take a lower chance of success over constant downgrading and refusals. At least, as the author put it, you get to enjoy the token gamble exercise.
Or fix an sql injection
OpenAI has no such restriction and I don't even need to use my Daybreak access, either, to analyze modern malware samples.
It's asinine, truly.
First, when Claude refuses I sometimes continue with Kimi or DeepSeek. They are less squeamish. Alas, the combination of C + kernel reliably makes Claude freak out: because of all the UB any tiny error becomes a security hole. (I have the cybersecurity verification stuff from OpenAI and Anthropic but they are still fairly strict.)
Second, contributing directly to the Linux kernel has never been easier. Claude knows all about how to interact with the archaic kernel mailing lists. The main rule I suggest: put in real effort, don't dump AI slop.
However I mostly worked in fixing filesystem bugs so far. I don't know whether the networking and DMA folks are as nice. But probably yes.
(Coincidence: the isofs filesystem code in the kernel is full of tiny holes as far as I can tell. I've patched some of them, but better don't try to mount a malicious CD image.)
Does TLS (transport layer) not have any retry logic? Could someone explain please?
The problem here is that the thing computing the TCP checksum on the outgoing frame was the WLAN firmware running on the WLAN NIC itself; this is known as checksum offloading. It saves CPU time if the CPU can just hand off a TCP segment to the NIC and let the NIC checksum it before it sends it out. This only works properly if the data given to the NIC doesn't get corrupted in the meantime.
I assume DTLS and QUIC handle MAC verification failures gracefully, like ordinary packet loss.
This is truly bonkers! Please, if you buy hardware that does not work correctly from day 1, return it. If you do not vote with your wallet these companies will never learn and will never adjust their practices. Rewarding TP-Link by keeping their terrible hardware does nothing.
> I contacted support in June because the website only had firmware for v2. They couldn't find v1 in their database and asked for photos of the device and box
!!
I wonder if EU push for basically 5 years of mandatory updates will make it better. Then again this isn't security bug but functional one...