Hi Sascha,
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 10:30:08AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> This adds support for the WPA-PSK AKM suite with SHA256 as hashing
> method (WPA-PSK-SHA256). Tested with a wpa_supplicant provided AP
> using key_mgmt=WPA-PSK-SHA256.
>
> Reviewed-by: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/fw.h | 1 +
> drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_cmd.c | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/fw.h b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/fw.h
> index 3adc447b715f6..1c76754b616ff 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/fw.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/fw.h
> @@ -415,6 +415,7 @@ enum MWIFIEX_802_11_PRIVACY_FILTER {
> #define KEY_MGMT_NONE 0x04
> #define KEY_MGMT_PSK 0x02
> #define KEY_MGMT_EAP 0x01
> +#define KEY_MGMT_PSK_SHA256 0x100
> #define CIPHER_TKIP 0x04
> #define CIPHER_AES_CCMP 0x08
> #define VALID_CIPHER_BITMAP 0x0c
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_cmd.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_cmd.c
> index 7f822660fd955..c055fdc7114ba 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_cmd.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_cmd.c
> @@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ int mwifiex_set_secure_params(struct mwifiex_private *priv,
> case WLAN_AKM_SUITE_PSK:
> bss_config->key_mgmt = KEY_MGMT_PSK;
> break;
> + case WLAN_AKM_SUITE_PSK_SHA256:
> + bss_config->key_mgmt = KEY_MGMT_PSK_SHA256;
> + break;
I feel like this relates to previous questions you've had [1], and while
I think the answer at the time made sense to me (basically, EAP and PSK
are mutually exclusive), it makes less sense to me here that PSK-SHA256
is mutually exclusive with PSK. And in particular, IIUC, this means that
the ordering in a wpa_supplicant.conf line like
key_mgmt=WPA-PSK WPA-PSK-SHA256
matters -- only the latter will actually be in use.
Is that intended? Is this really a single-value field, and not a
multiple-option bitfield?
Or if these are really mutually exclusive, then maybe we're on the wrong
track here:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/20240530130156.1651174-1-s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
wifi: mwifiex: increase max_num_akm_suites
In any case, something feels off here, because the nl80211 API doesn't
say anything about the ordering of AKM suites being relevant.
Brian
> default:
> break;
> }
>
> --
> 2.39.2
>
[1] Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v10 2/2] wifi: mwifiex: add host mlme for AP mode
https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zmvjw3aG9j8kW0Ld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/PA4PR04MB9638B7F0F4E49F79057C15FBD1CD2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
