On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 06:35 -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote: > I don't really see need for getting rid of the management interface, but > if there is consensus on doing that, I think the ugliest point is that you need to do voodoo to conjure it :) > we would need to have another way > of being able to receive and transmit management frames and data frames > from/to user space in a way that provides at least following > functionality: > - transmit management frames at high priority > - control whether transmitted frames will be encrypted or not > - get callback to report TX status for unicast frames (whether the > receiver sent control::ack for the frame) > - receive management frames > - delivery of notifications to user space for Michael MIC errors and > other similar events That all seems doable with some patches adding to the patches I had posted before the one we're discussing. > - receive data frames EAPOL/etc. ethertypes in decrypted form This looks like a show-stopper. Also the fact that then we don't need to add at least the flag "monitor without leaving power save" which is fairly problematic to define API-wise. Plus Jiri's point that having a second interface open [1] is still ugly. I don't even disagree, but until now I didn't have a better reason to repudiate the monitor mode idea. I suppose that actually working in this area made us all see the issues better (you've listed exactly the issues but I had to extract those points from the code). johannes [1] and network manager hates that, it'll take the first opportunity it has to convert monitor interfaces back to managed mode, at least if they're alphabetically before the managed mode interface
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
