> For ieee80211_set_active_links(), driver need save and install pairwise > keys for the other links as you said in link below. But driver do not > save the key data currently. So driver could not install the pairwise > keys by itself. > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/50719d34bc48d816d00b56d3d9efdb59e3e51a16.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Well it can still easily iterate the keys, but OK, I can buy this argument. You should probably mention it all in the commit log though. > > > @@ -166,6 +167,13 @@ static void ieee80211_set_vif_links_bitmaps(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata, > > > WARN_ON(dormant_links); > > > break; > > > case NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION: > > > + active_links = drv_calculate_active_links(sdata->local, sdata, > > > + valid_links & ~dormant_links); > > > + if (active_links) { > > > + sdata->vif.active_links = active_links; > > > + break; > > > + } > > > > > I also _really_ don't think this should operate at this low-level > > infrastructure. > > I really want to know the reason why active *only* the assoc link for > station, but > > active *all* links for AP here😁? Well, fair point. I was somehow anyway thinking that it should be the other way around, I mean, in the sense that this code here is just mechanism, and the policy should've been in higher-level code ... but somehow that's not what we ended up doign here. It really feels wrong to me to have the driver involved in this low- level infrastructure, but OTOH that really is how it works now? Maybe really what you want is a driver flag saying IEEE80211_HW_MANAGES_ACTIVE_LINKS or something, and then from a mac80211 perspective you don't set active links at all? Though I'm not sure that works with TTLM, for instance? And maybe you'd still want the debugfs? But in fact, if you do still want something from mac80211 for debugfs or TTLM, then this code here is not really right, since you'd interact with _all_ attempts in mac80211 to activate or deactivate links - when all you really wanted was the very first one. Which today mac80211 achieves by bailing out "if (sdata->vif.active_links)", and while you could do the same in the driver, it feels really brittle / error-prone to me. I think it'd be better than all these callbacks to encode the specific behaviour you need in a flag, e.g. "activate all STA links on assoc" or something? johannes
