On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 03:21 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was just pondering rewriting parts of the state machine (and you've
> > already seen the other cleanups I did today) and found this:
> >
> >> + /* Direct probe is sent to broadcast address as some APs
> >> + * will not answer to direct packet in unassociated state.
> >> + */
> >> + ieee80211_send_probe_req(dev, NULL,
> >> + ifsta->ssid, ifsta->ssid_len);
> >
> >> + /* direct probe may be part of the association flow */
> >> + if (test_and_clear_bit(IEEE80211_STA_REQ_DIRECT_PROBE,
> >> + &ifsta->request)) {
> >> + printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s direct probe responded\n", dev->name);
> >> + ieee80211_authenticate(dev, ifsta);
> >
> > Doesn't the latter code have to check that the sender is the correct
> > one? First we broadcast the probe request, and then we may be getting
> > one from a different AP but still clear our direct probe association
> > flow step, no?
>
> Yep, this is not covered. Don't remember why it wasn't straight
> forward to implement...will look at it again after sunrise.
Actually, don't bother, I'm fixing it, was just trying to see if I was
missing anything and it was correct already.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
