Merge branch 'ieee802154-next'

Phoebe Buckheister says:

====================
802154: implement link-layer security

This patch series implements 802.15.4-2011 link layer security.

Patches 1 and 2 prepare for llsec by adding data structures to represent the
llsec PIB as specified in 802.15.4-2011. I've changed some structures from
their specification to be more sensible, since 802.15.4 specifies some
structures in not-exactly-useful ways. Nested lists are common, but not very
accessible for netlink methods, and not very fast to traverse when searching
for specific elements either.

Patch 3 implements backends for these structures in mac802154.

Patch 4 and 5 implement the encryption and decryption methods, split from patch
3 to ease review. The encryption and decryption methods are almost entirely
compliant with the specified outgoing/incoming frame procedures. Decryption
deviates from the specification slightly where the specification makes no
sense, i.e. encrypted frames with security level 0 may be sent, but must be
dropped an reception - but transforms for processing such frames are given a
few lines in the standard. I've opted to not drop these frames instead of not
implementing the transforms that wouldn't be used if they were dropped.

Patch 6 links the mac802154 llsec with the SoftMAC devices. This is mainly
init//fini code for llsec context, handling of security subheaders and calling
the encryption/decryption methods.

Patch 7 adds sockopts to 802.15.4 dgram sockets to modifiy outgoing security
parameters on a per-socket basis. Ideally, this would also be available for
sockets on 6lowpan devices, but I'm not sure how to do that nicely.

Patch 8 adds forwarders to the llsec configuration methods for netlink, patch
10 implements these netlink accessors. This is mainly mechanical.

Patch 11, implements a key tracking option for devices that previous patches
haven't, because I'm not entirely sure whether this is the best approach to the
problem. It performs reasonably well though, so I decided to include it as a
separate patch in this series instead of sending an RFC just for this one
option.
====================

Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>