Hi Johannes,
> > > > +static unsigned char vendor_oui[3] = { 0x00, 0x50, 0xf2 };
> > > > +static unsigned char cipher_oui[3] = { 0x00, 0x0f, 0xac };
> > >
> > > ??
> > > 00-50-f2 is "WiFi OUI" (registered to Microsoft), 00-0f-ac is "802.11
> > > OUI", registered to 802.11.
> >
> > I can rename them if that helps.
>
> Yes, please do, but also synchronise the things you print out. _All_
> cipher specs are effectively vendor-specified, but some use vendor
> "WiFi" and some use vendor "802.11" so are standardised in some form. I
> don't think printing "Vendor specified: ..." for the WiFi OUI or "Other"
> for "real" vendor-specified ones helps.
>
> > > Why are you passing in the OUI?
> >
> > The WPA1 and WPA2 IE are uses a different OUI for basically exactly the
> > same thing.
>
> Yeah, I noticed later.
>
> > > > + if (len < 4) {
> > > > + tab_on_first(&first);
> > > > + printf("\t * Group cipher: TKIP\n");
> > > > + printf("\t * Pairwise ciphers: TKIP\n");
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Huh? I don't quite understand this? Is that some backward compat code?
> > > Or is this some WPA1 thing I don't know about?
> >
> > The specification says that the only mandatory field is the version and
> > after that everything else is optional and falls back to default
> > TKIP/TKIP. At least that is what I read of it.
>
> Ok, makes sense I guess.
>
> > > > +static void print_rsn(unsigned char type, unsigned char len, unsigned char *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > + print_wpa("WPA2", cipher_oui, len, data);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > That's "oui_80211" I guess, not "cipher_oui". Ok I see now why you want
> > > to pass in the OUI... However, it would be better to just duplicate the
> > > code, I think for example 11w won't be announced in WPA1 IEs so we
> > > shouldn't parse it there when we add support for parsing it to RSN IEs.
> >
> > Since iw is just printing the actual IE, I don't think we should be
> > bothering here with code duplication. We can just print what the element
> > actually contains. If for some weird fucked up AP, has 11w inside WPA1,
> > then I actually wanna have iw print that :)
>
> No, this is the wrong approach. See, there are two defined cipher suites
> for, say, CCMP:
> 00:50:f2-4 and 00:0f:ac-4
>
> However, it is not necessarily true that 00:50:f2-N is _always_ the same
> as 00:0f:ac-N. 11w adds 00:0f:ac-6 (AES-128-CMAC, you could add that to
> your patch), but 00:50:f2-6 stays undefined since the WiFi spec defines
> that one, not the 802.11 spec. The WiFi spec could very well define
> 00:50:f2-6 as "quantum cryptography mode reserved for future" if it
> wishes.
I will fix that. Was a misconception on my side. I have to rebase the
other patches, so can you have a quick look, then I can redo the whole
batch.
Regards
Marcel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
