On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 06:58 +0100, Andy Green wrote: > Johannes Berg wrote: > > >> I think netlink is fine if it is used for injection too (at least of > >> management frames and WPA stuff). > > > > I don't disagree. I'd even say that having both injection interfaces is > > fine since they really cover different use cases. > > What are these different usage cases such that you need to maintain the > two different ways of doing it? Well one is yours which is rather similar to the "security-related" tools (airsnort, aireplay, ...), you want to be able to send the frame as much as you hand it to the kernel as possible. On the other hand, I do consider userspace MLME needs slightly different; it needs to be able to have frames encrypted, needs to see frames that have been decrypted even though they would otherwise be dropped [and this is very different to what you want], and probably more. I haven't seen a good proposal to unify this. To me, Jiri's proposal of packing what is essentially out-of-band data into some sort of special frames is no use, and your proposal to use monitor mode interfaces is perfect for the first use case, but still leaves us with more out-of-band data that the userspace MLME needs and hence doesn't gain us much. Who started this anti-nl80211 thing anyway? I still don't see what's so wrong with sending frames down a PF_NETLINK socket rather than a PF_PACKET socket. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
