On 5/14/2019 2:08 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 14:55 +0530, Manikanta Pubbisetty wrote:
+++ b/net/mac80211/util.c
@@ -3795,7 +3795,9 @@ int ieee80211_check_combinations(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
}
/* Always allow software iftypes */
- if (local->hw.wiphy->software_iftypes & BIT(iftype)) {
+ if (local->hw.wiphy->software_iftypes & BIT(iftype) ||
+ (iftype == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP_VLAN &&
+ local->hw.wiphy->flags & WIPHY_FLAG_4ADDR_AP)) {
if (radar_detect)
return -EINVAL;
Shouldn't this check if 4addr is actually enabled too, like here:
Sure Johannes, I'll look into it.
case NETDEV_PRE_UP:
- if (!(wdev->wiphy->interface_modes & BIT(wdev->iftype)))
+ if (!(wdev->wiphy->interface_modes & BIT(wdev->iftype)) &&
+ !(wdev->iftype == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP_VLAN &&
+ rdev->wiphy.flags & WIPHY_FLAG_4ADDR_AP &&
+ wdev->use_4addr))
return notifier_from_errno(-EOPNOTSUPP);
?
Or is there some reason it doesn't matter?
@@ -3439,6 +3438,11 @@ static int nl80211_new_interface(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
return err;
}
+ if (!(rdev->wiphy.interface_modes & (1 << type)) &&
+ !(type == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP_VLAN && params.use_4addr &&
+ rdev->wiphy.flags & WIPHY_FLAG_4ADDR_AP))
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
I also wonder if we shouldn't go "all in" and actually make the check
something like
check_interface_allowed(iftype, 4addr):
if (iftype == AP_VLAN && 4addr)
return wiphy.flags & WIPHY_FLAG_4ADDR_AP;
else return wiphy.interface_modes & BIT(iftype);
i.e. make it "you must have WIPHY_FLAG_4ADDR_AP to use 4-addr AP_VLAN
interfaces", rather than "also allow it in this case".
That would seem like the clearer semantics to me?
Yeah, it can be better; I'll check if this is feasible.
Thanks,
Manikanta
