On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 14:11 -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > Dan Williams wrote : > > > > Hidden SSID is a mess right now. Here's why, and here's a proposal for > > fixing it. > > If you want my participation, it's usually wise to cc me. Unintentional omission, sorry... I was thinking of it more as a driver issue but you're right. > > The problem is that there isn't a nice, generic capabilities field in > > WEXT. So we have to abuse an existing one, and I picked enc_capa. > > Please don't do that. It's fairly trivial to add a new field > in iwrange. And it's not like the sky will fall down if we add a field > in iwrange. If you want to do it, please do it right. Well, the problem I had with this is that it's less likely to get backported because it potentially breaks binary compatibility for distros. There are 3 options here: 1) overload enc_capa 2) add a field and start doing comparisons of the size of the iw_range structure to figure out what is available and what's not 3) Bump the WEXT version #3 is a non-starter because it is a much larger, more invasive change and requires more breakage of ABI and such. I guess #2 is acceptable. > Note that there is one gotcha because of the state of > userspace, so if you want I can produce a kernel patch that will work > properly, and I'll add the usespace support for it as well. Could you describe that more? > > +#define IW_ENC_CAPA_SPECIFIC_SSID_SCAN 0x00000010 > > That won't work. You have a tri-state, and with only a single > bit you can encode only two state. You basically have : > o driver that support ap_scan=1 > o driver that do not support ap_scan=1 > o driver that have not been updated or reside in old kernels Well, to be fair, the patch posted handles this perfectly well, because older kernels with drivers that don't have the capability just dont' advertise it. Therefore everything works fine. > So, at the minimum, you'd want : > ------------------------------------- > +#define IW_ENC_CAPA_SPECIFIC_SSID_SCAN 0x00000010 > +#define IW_ENC_CAPA_ANY_SSID_SCAN 0x00000020 > ------------------------------------- I'm not sure why we'd want ANY_SSID_SCAN? It's already assumed that all drivers support scanning. Drivers that don't support scanning and are already in the tree have so few users and are so old that we just don't care. New drivers will get a HUGE NAK if they don't have scanning support, so I don't really see this as necessary. > > However, userspace is f*cked because it can't figure out which one to > > use, and trying both is not an option because you get unacceptable > > latency for the user when trying to associate. > > Another option would be for SIOCSIWSCAN to fail if a specific > SSID is set and it does not support it, instead of just ignoring it. Again, that won't work because it requires changing _all_ drivers. We need to fix this by ensuring that the change only affects those drivers that support the capability, not requiring drivers that dont' have it to change. Extending range would work here. Dan - 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
