On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? :) > well, they just use the api... :) > Maybe we should just get rid of the requirement to assign beacon_ies > with the bss_width() call and make free() smarter? this will also require changing cfg80211_bss_update() to take care of this case, etc. not sure we really want to complicate it further more. Eliad. -- 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
