have an ath10k-ct IBSS network where the caps are advertised as
(0x0012 , IBSS Privacy). Upon joining the network, all units skip the
scan results and reject the network's BSS with the message (" skip -
not ESS, PBSS, or MBSS") which is where bss_is_ess() is called. They
later create a new network and then merge after receiving a beacon
from another IBSS device.
I see now my original proposal is wrong, but can we add (ssid->mode !=
IEEE80211_MODE_IBSS) to the caller, like:
--- a/wpa_supplicant/events.c
+++ b/wpa_supplicant/events.c
@@ -1225,11 +1225,12 @@ struct wpa_ssid * wpa_scan_res_match(struct
wpa_supplicant *wpa_s,
continue;
}
- if (ssid->mode != WPAS_MODE_MESH && !bss_is_ess(bss) &&
- !bss_is_pbss(bss)) {
+ if (ssid->mode != WPAS_MODE_MESH &&
+ ssid->mode != IEEE80211_MODE_IBSS &&
+ !bss_is_ess(bss) && !bss_is_pbss(bss)) {
if (debug_print)
wpa_dbg(wpa_s, MSG_DEBUG,
- " skip - not ESS, PBSS, or MBSS");
+ " skip - not ESS, IBSS,
PBSS, or MBSS");
continue;
}
I tested that and it allows the units to join immediately after
getting the scan results. Isn't that what is intended?
Thanks.
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 15:31, Jouni Malinen <j@xxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 04:04:29PM -0600, Ahmed Zaki wrote:
> > The check for the ESS or IBSS bits in the BSS caps is done via equality
> > to IEEE80211_CAP_ESS (0x01). This will only be true for AP/ESS and will
> > fail in case of IBSS (0x02).
>
> What do you mean with "fail" in this context? An IBSS is not an ESS, so
> it sounds correct to me for bss_is_ess() to return 0 if the BSS is an
> IBSS.
>
> > diff --git a/wpa_supplicant/events.c b/wpa_supplicant/events.c
> > @@ -906,8 +906,7 @@ static int bss_is_ess(struct wpa_bss *bss)
> > IEEE80211_CAP_DMG_AP;
> > }
> >
> > - return ((bss->caps & (IEEE80211_CAP_ESS | IEEE80211_CAP_IBSS)) ==
> > - IEEE80211_CAP_ESS);
> > + return (bss->caps & IEEE80211_CAP_ESS || bss->caps & IEEE80211_CAP_IBSS);
>
> This would break bss_is_ess() by making it incorrectly claim an IBSS to
> be an IBSS. Please note that the only caller of bss_is_ess() used to
> originally do "if (bss->caps & IEEE80211_CAP_IBSS) continue" which is
> what is still happening with the current bss_is_ess() implementation
> while this proposed change would negate that.
>
> What are you trying to fix with this?
>
> --
> Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA
_______________________________________________
Hostap mailing list
Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
