On 9/9/07, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hey, > > I just looked at the deaggregation code for unrelated reasons and > thought about it a bit more; shouldn't there be some sort of checks that > the 802.11 rules about identical addresses are adhered to to avoid > having rogue packets pretending to come from somewhere else enter the > networking stack? This can usually be avoided by using RSNA, but this > code allows one to easily circumvent this which makes us look pretty > bad. > > Makes you wonder why they included full 802.3 framing in the > subframes... > There is difference between receiving and destination address. AP is receiving address but not the destination. If station sends packets to multiple stations it still go through one AP (receiving address). The only restriction is that all the packets in A-MSDU belongs to one TID stream. There is actually different problem with the A-MSDU deaggregation and this is EPOL filtering. One of the packets might belong to EAPOL handshake 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
