On Monday 13 August 2007 01:54, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 00:54 -0700, Michael Wu wrote: > > This part seems fairly evil. I suspect a better solution here is to allow > > unencrypted frames when the interface is dormant (netif_dormant()) and > > then we might be able to get rid of the specific check for WEP. > > Might that address Tomas's concern with EAPOL too? > Nope, this is just for the privacy mismatch check. -Michael Wu
Attachment:
pgpGRQAj6skKd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
