On Thu, 2018-11-22 at 15:49 +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote: > > So this NL80211_ATTR_WANT_1X_4WAY_HS flag could be added even if the > driver does not advertise NL80211_EXT_FEATURE_4WAY_HANDSHAKE_STA_1X. Is > that really the expected behavior here? Shouldn't > NL80211_ATTR_WANT_1X_4WAY_HS be used only if the driver has advertised > NL80211_EXT_FEATURE_4WAY_HANDSHAKE_STA_1X? cfg80211 would seem to reject > NL80211_CMD_CONNECT with NL80211_ATTR_WANT_1X_4WAY_HS if that feature > flag is not advertised.. IIRC this is a bit of a historic accident/problem - the first version(s) of the nl80211 extended feature bits didn't differentiate, but then eventually we changed that when it got merged. I think the code here - setting WPA_DRIVER_FLAGS_4WAY_HANDSHAKE based on both - predates those changes. I guess WPA_DRIVER_FLAGS_4WAY_HANDSHAKE should really be split similarly johannes _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
