On 8/20/07, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 10:56 +0800, Zhu Yi wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 13:26 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > I was recently reviewing encryption stuff---can you comment on why you > > > don't allow disabling hardware keys? For proper operation you really > > > should allow that. > > > > I don't think there is any special reason, just haven't enabled it yet. > > We enable the hwcrypto and find it works good, then we switched to > > enable something else. For the end users, I think they'd always want to > > use hwcrypto if it is supported by the hardware. For developers, I'd > > agree it is useful. I'll add it to the TODO list. > > I guess the relevant thing is that if an association is lost then the > key shouldn't be retained in the hardware because it should no longer be > used, yet you don't allow to disable that key. iwlwifi has notion of 'station' in driver and firmware. The whole instance of station including keys has to be removed on association lost. We need get at least mac address of the station that has lost association into driver to do that. There is not comfortable interface right now mac80211 to do that. The same goes for association process where station has to be added we use rate scale init for that right now. There is some table_notification handler but it only updates driver about number of stations. There was a whole discussion we led about if rate scale algorithm and notion of station should separated from the driver or not. I'm not sure it was closed yet. Thanks Tomas > johannes > > - 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
