> ieee80211_ioctl_siwauth in ieee80211_ioctl.c sets the > key_management_enabled variable if the value passed to the ioctl is not > 0 to true: > sdata->u.sta.key_management_enabled = !!data->value; > why !!data->value ? that should be the same as data->value ... Nope. Think again :) !! normalises to 0/1 rather than 0/!=0 > now to wpa_supplicant: > wpa_driver_wext_keymgmt2wext in driver_wext.c returns > IW_AUTH_KEY_MGMT_802_1 (which is defined as 1) (when dynamic wep is > used) wpa_driver_wext_set_auth_param than passes the value using > ioctl(drv->ioctl_sock, SIOCSIWAUTH, &iwr) to mac80211. Are you sure it returns IW_AUTH_KEY_MGMT_802_1(X)? My assumption was that this is what goes wrong. > ieee80211_privacy_mismatch checks for > if (!ifsta || (ifsta->flags & IEEE80211_STA_MIXED_CELL) || > ifsta->key_management_enabled) > > and returns 0 because ifsta->key_management_enabled true in this case > !!1 -> 1 Which is fine, privacy_mismatch() returns 0 if there's no "mismatch" and we should hence proceed with the association. > so the attached patch should fix it by doing !data->value (which would > result in ifsta->key_management_enabled to be 0 here and therefor > ieee80211_privacy_mismatch won't return 0). That's bogus, you misunderstood the return value of privacy_mismatch() johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
