On 7/14/2022 1:52 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
+ * %NL80211_ATTR_MLO_LINK_ID, If %NL80211_ATTR_MLO_LINK_ID is not present
+ * the specified key index data should be deleted for all the links.
really? for all the links seems... complicated?
Thought delete key operation can be optimized in some cases with single
request to delete group keys
on all MLO links. I agree that it is not inline with other key
operations and makes it complicated, dropped this comment in v2 patch.
--- a/net/wireless/util.c
+++ b/net/wireless/util.c
@@ -935,13 +935,13 @@ void cfg80211_upload_connect_keys(struct wireless_dev *wdev)
for (i = 0; i < CFG80211_MAX_WEP_KEYS; i++) {
if (!wdev->connect_keys->params[i].cipher)
continue;
- if (rdev_add_key(rdev, dev, i, false, NULL,
+ if (rdev_add_key(rdev, dev, -1, i, false, NULL,
&wdev->connect_keys->params[i])) {
netdev_err(dev, "failed to set key %d\n", i);
continue;
}
if (wdev->connect_keys->def == i &&
- rdev_set_default_key(rdev, dev, i, true, true)) {
+ rdev_set_default_key(rdev, dev, -1, i, true, true)) {
netdev_err(dev, "failed to set defkey %d\n", i);
continue;
}
Now in this case we probably couldn't have made an MLO connection, can
we? Or maybe we can with full offload firmware? And then should this
really be -1 towards the driver?
Actually - these are WEP keys, so no MLO?
yes, MLO connection shouldn't happen in this case since these are WEP keys.
diff --git a/net/wireless/wext-compat.c b/net/wireless/wext-compat.c
index a9767bf..3dd0946 100644
--- a/net/wireless/wext-compat.c
+++ b/net/wireless/wext-compat.c
@@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ static int __cfg80211_set_encryption(struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev,
!(rdev->wiphy.flags & WIPHY_FLAG_IBSS_RSN))
err = -ENOENT;
else
- err = rdev_del_key(rdev, dev, idx, pairwise,
+ err = rdev_del_key(rdev, dev, -1, idx, pairwise,
addr);
}
wdev->wext.connect.privacy = false;
All of this stuff has me thinking though - now you still need driver
validation, because on an MLO connection the WEXT handlers could be
called?! YUCK!
Maybe we should just prevent all of these handlers on interfaces that
are MLDs, i.e. have valid_links != 0?
I guess that's not really specific to your patch though.
johannes
Yeah, already in most of the cases WEXT specific code is
skipped/rejected for MLO.
addressed other comments from you and added few checks for WEP and WEXT
in v2 patch series. Please review.
- veeru
