Hi,
> Multi-link support is introduced in 802.11be specification.
[...]
I'll definitely have to take a closer look at this and the spec and
think about it - but a couple of quick comments below.
> @@ -3131,6 +3139,7 @@ enum nl80211_iftype {
> NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_DEVICE,
> NL80211_IFTYPE_OCB,
> NL80211_IFTYPE_NAN,
> + NL80211_IFTYPE_MLO_LINK_DEVICE,
You'll probably have to update some mac80211 code in this patch to avoid
compiler warnings.
> +void cfg80211_stop_mlo_link_device(struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev,
> + struct wireless_dev *wdev)
> +{
> + ASSERT_RTNL();
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(wdev->iftype != NL80211_IFTYPE_MLO_LINK_DEVICE))
> + return;
> +
> + if (!wdev_running(wdev))
> + return;
> +
> + rdev_stop_mlo_link_device(rdev, wdev);
> + wdev->is_running = false;
> +
> + rdev->opencount--;
> +
> + if (rdev->scan_req && rdev->scan_req->wdev == wdev) {
> + if (WARN_ON(!rdev->scan_req->notified &&
> + (!rdev->int_scan_req ||
> + !rdev->int_scan_req->notified)))
> + rdev->scan_req->info.aborted = true;
> + ___cfg80211_scan_done(rdev, false);
> + }
Does it even make sense to allow scanning on this wdev, rather than on
the normal client interfaces? Perhaps should just not be able to get
there?
> @@ -718,6 +718,7 @@ static const struct nla_policy nl80211_policy[NUM_NL80211_ATTR] = {
> [NL80211_ATTR_SAE_PWE] =
> NLA_POLICY_RANGE(NLA_U8, NL80211_SAE_PWE_HUNT_AND_PECK,
> NL80211_SAE_PWE_BOTH),
> + [NL80211_ATTR_MLO_LINK_INFO] = { .type = NLA_NESTED },
That should specify what/how it's nested, using
NLA_POLICY_NESTED_ARRAY() (I think, in this case)
> struct sk_buff *msg;
> void *hdr;
> + struct nlattr *nested, *nested_mlo_links;
> + struct cfg80211_mlo_link_device_params *mlo_link;
> + int i = 0;
>
> msg = nlmsg_new(100 + cr->req_ie_len + cr->resp_ie_len +
> cr->fils.kek_len + cr->fils.pmk_len +
> - (cr->fils.pmkid ? WLAN_PMKID_LEN : 0), gfp);
> + (cr->fils.pmkid ? WLAN_PMKID_LEN : 0) +
> + (cr->n_mlo_links ? cr->n_mlo_links * 32 : 0), gfp);
32 probably should be some NLA_SIZE or something constant?
There's also no point in the ternary operator since 0 * 32 is 0 :)
> /* Consumes bss object one way or another */
> @@ -833,7 +849,9 @@ void cfg80211_connect_done(struct net_device *dev,
> ev = kzalloc(sizeof(*ev) + (params->bssid ? ETH_ALEN : 0) +
> params->req_ie_len + params->resp_ie_len +
> params->fils.kek_len + params->fils.pmk_len +
> - (params->fils.pmkid ? WLAN_PMKID_LEN : 0), gfp);
> + (params->fils.pmkid ? WLAN_PMKID_LEN : 0) +
> + (params->n_mlo_links ? params->n_mlo_links *
> + sizeof(struct cfg80211_mlo_link_device_params) : 0), gfp);
same here, no need for the ternary
It feels strangely asymmetric to have stop and no start ... but I guess
that's the part where I need to think about it and look a bit at how it
all works :)
johannes
