Ivo van Doorn wrote:
Not a question regarding the patch itself, but more about the comment
regarding IEEE80211_HW_WEP_INCLUDE_IV and WEP encryption. ;)
You mean the drivers that require mac80211 to do the encryption/decryption
must make sure the IEEE80211_HW_WEP_INCLUDE_IV is _not_ set?
I figured that when device requires software encryption they should set the flag
since they do not touch the frame and pass it through completely to the stack
this would also mean that the IV is passed on. Which should suggest that the
flag should be set to tell mac80211 it can use the IV.
I'm not too up on this myself, but when I ported the frond end of bcm43xx-mac80211 to b43legacy, I
left the flags supplied to mac80211 untouched. Once I got the basic engine running using V3, rather
than V4, firmware, it did WPA encryption just fine. Of course, WPA is done in software in both
instances. WEP encrypt/decrypt is done in hardware in bcm43xx-mac80211, but it does not work in V3.
The only way I could get software-based WEP to work was to get rid of the "set_key" callback, which
sets an internal flag called force_sw_encrypt, and kill that flag. Then both WEP and WPA worked in
software, but the message showed up for WPA.
Yes, this empirical behavior does not seem to match one's intuition on what the flag should do.
Of course my patch is a complete hack that is band-aiding over a deeper flaw/bug in mac80211;
however, my request for a fix has gone unanswered. In addition, this problem is preventing me from
sending b43legacy to John. I originally intended to use my hack only while debugging, but when no
fix was coming, I decided that an awful patch would probably get some action. We'll see,
particularly now that my deep/dark secret is exposed. ;-)
Larry
-
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
