On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 14:13 +0300, Eliad Peller wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Johannes Berg > <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 13:57 +0300, Eliad Peller wrote: > > > > > >> > @@ -1011,6 +1018,9 @@ cfg80211_inform_bss_width_frame(struct wiphy *wiphy, > >> > if (res->pub.capability & WLAN_CAPABILITY_ESS) > >> > regulatory_hint_found_beacon(wiphy, channel, gfp); > >> > > >> > + /* assume drivers don't mix and match too badly */ > >> > + res->known_frame_type = true; > >> > + > >> > >> i think you should set the flag only in case of a beacon. > >> otherwise, you might "validate" res->ies although it contains probe > >> response data. > > > > Hm, what do you mean? If we have known frametype and we have beacon_ies, > > then IEs in nl80211 are certain to be proberesp_ies ... > > > sorry, i meant res->beacon_ies. > > consider the following flow: > cfg80211_inform_bss_width(presp1): > * beacon_ies = presp1 > * known_frame_type = false > > cfg80211_inform_bss_width_frame(presp2): > * proberesp_ies = presp2 > * beacon_ies = presp1 > * known_frame_type = true Yeah, well, I'm hoping that drivers wouldn't be so stupid? :) Maybe we should just get rid of the requirement to assign beacon_ies with the bss_width() call and make free() smarter? 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
