On 25-4-2017 16:40, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 22:01 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > >> I have been working on 4-way handshake offloading and one of the >> things discussed was the addition of PORT_AUTHORIZED flag. So >> this is what I came up with, but I suppose wpa_supplicant wants >> to know whether it can expect this attribute or not. One option >> is to have PORT_UNAUTHORIZED flag instead. Another option would >> be introducing it as nl80211 protocol feature although not sure >> if it could be considered as such. What do you guys think? > > I think it could be, but I'm not really sure it matters? > >> + (cr->port_state != CONTROL_PORT_STATE_UNAUTHORIZED && >> + nla_put_flag(msg, NL80211_ATTR_PORT_AUTHORIZED)) || >> (cr->req_ie && >> > This doesn't really make sense - why does unspecified equal authorized? I was considering default behavior here for drivers that do not provide this information, ie. drivers not supporting 4-way handshake offload. So wpa_supplicant just looks for the PORT_AUTHORIZED attribute and deals with it without need for checking 4-way handshake offload is supported. Regards, Arend
