On Friday 03 August 2007, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 17:09 +0200, Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> > On Friday 03 August 2007, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 20:37 +0200, Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> > >
> > > > + if (is_monitor_present(intf)) {
> > > > + filter = IFF_PROMISC | IFF_MULTICAST | IFF_BROADCAST;
> > > > + if (intf->filter != filter)
> > > > + __set_bit(PACKET_FILTER_PENDING, &rt2x00dev->flags);
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Don't do that. There's no requirement that monitor mode interfaces
> > > always be promisc. Also, earlier in the code:
> >
> > Note that this "Enable promisc" on monitor mode here will only be send to
> > the device. It does not mean that the non-monitor mode will have promisc
> > mode enabled. In fact, when the monitor interface goes down, the normal
> > setting will be used again.
> > If with monitor mode, IFF_PROMISC is not send to the device, monitor
> > mode is useless since it will not catch anything except beacons
> > (Especially true when you only have 1 interface which is in monitor mode)
>
> But don't you allow monitoring during operation? In that case this would
> make that monitor interface always promisc which isn't what you want
> unless you set the promisc bit on any of the interfaces.
But that would mean that when a non-monitor and monitor interface are
enabled at the same time, the montitor interface is quite pointless since
all frames can be caught on the regular interface as well.
A monitor interface is supposed to catch as many frames as possible,
if a monitor interface does not catch frames not directly send to it, it won't
catch anything except beacons.
Even when there is only 1 interface which is in monitor mode, the user shouldn't
have to set the device into promisc mode right?
Ivo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
