Hi, On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 15:43 +1200, Gilad Itzkovitch wrote: > > > This doesn't make much sense to me - why would it be allowed or > > necessary to call this function on a frame that wasn't yet defragmented? > > That was partially our understanding. But, the fragmented action frame is > being dropped by this function > Well, this function doesn't drop anything :) It just answers a question "is this a robust management frame", but if the question is nonsense (calling it on a fragment other than the first) then the answer will also be nonsense, right? > as it is part of the provisioning DPP process > (fragmented due to S1G low rates). Right. > Trying to avoid a big change here for this specific action category. It's not really related to any specific category, is it? > As defragmentation will occur later on in the process there should be a > safe way to avoid dropping the frame beforehand. Sure! But this isn't really a good way, nor would I argue it is safe ... Perhaps ieee80211_rx_h_decrypt() needs to be more careful? I'm not even sure where the frame really is being dropped. Anyway, I really don't think this patch makes any sense, I think you need to back up a bit and look at the higher layer(s) to see where and why it's being dropped, and skip that if it's fragmented? johannes
