On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 13:23 +0100, Andy Green wrote: > Jiri Benc wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:53:50 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> 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. > > > > Perhaps it was just my misunderstanding about the monitor interface tx > > injection patches; I though this mechanism should be used for hostapd and > > user space MLME, which I consider wrong. Johannes' comment about different > > needs (and thus having both injection through monitor iface and through > > netlink) makes perfectly sense, though. > > > > Andy, is using a monitor interface (for both injecting and receiving of > > frames) acceptable for you? If yes, let's drop my proposal (I said it might > > turn up to be useless :-)), apply patches for monitor iface injection and > > implement a netlink soultion as a replacement of the current management > > interface. > > Yes the existing Monitor Mode Try #13 is fine for me and the userland > projects I know about, :) > but actually I quite liked your encapsulation > thing -- in itself is compatible with working in any mode. The only > problem with it right now is that it seems when mananged mode interfaces > are not associated, they are in a netif_carrier_off() state or similar. Oh, good point, I forgot about that in my other reply. Yeah, we really want to go to IFF_DORMANT too and that really stops us from doing anything. Also, if we do QoS on the interfaces then the qdisc might end up dropping our packets if we don't do special hacks around that, again something we cannot accept. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
