On Fri, 2024-08-23 at 18:55 +0530, Ajith C wrote: > > I’ve noticed that stations are sending association requests with zeros > in the EHT-MCS and NSS fields. According to draft 6.0 (Table 9-417p), > a value of zero is allowed for NSS to indicate ‘Not supported.’ > Therefore, I believe we shouldn’t consider these as invalid requests. OK, that sounds different... > Additionally, since other lower bandwidths are supported, I thought > it would be more appropriate to select the next available bandwidth > rather than dropping the request. I'm not sure I see why. You're talking about ieee80211_sta_cap_rx_bw(), and if the STA says it has a certain capability we should probably believe it? Munging the capabilities there seems pretty wrong, and *especially* doing it if it e.g. has no RX or TX for a given bandwidth - I guess in theory then it's possible that it's saying it can receive but won't transmit (which we should probably not care about), or it can transmit but not receive (which should impact rate control). It doesn't seem right to assume that it will not use say 160 MHz if it doesn't have RX MCS/NSS support for 160 MHz, I'd say? Or only has partial support, for some NSSes? It seems you should solve whatever problem you have here in rate control instead, but I'm not even sure what problem you have. johannes
