On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 10:38 -0700, Andrey Yurovsky wrote: > As I understand it, despite the "h" in ieee80211_rx_h_action, Heh. That is part of _rx_h which stands for RX handler :) > it > filters both BACK (802.11e and required for 802.11n) and spectrum > management (802.11h) action frames. I suppose that the entire check > isn't really necessary. I don't know much about the > WLAN_ACTION_SPCT_MSR_REQ frame but as far as the BACK frames, there > shouldn't be any harm with passing them to the driver for any of the > interface types. Should I resubmit this as removing the check > entirely? I think so. > Should there perhaps be separate functions for the 11e and > 11h action frames? Possible, although right now we only handle measurement requests by rejecting them... > Additionally, with the check the way it currently is, an AP interface > (for example) will respond to an ADDBA frame with something strange > (action code 0x83 for starters, and the rest of the action frame > doesn't make sense), at least with iwlagn. It seems that if the check > fails and we don't pass the frame to the driver, something weird still > happens (otherwise, for iwlagn at least, the right thing happens). I > haven't had a chance to see if other drivers / interfaces do that. Do we know where that frame comes from? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
