On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 13:30 +0200, Jouni Malinen wrote: > One problem with the registration mechanism is that it may not be > obvious at this point what exactly we want to export into user space > in > the future and what gets handled inside the kernel. One obvious place > would be to do register to process all Action frames of a specific > category, but that may not be enough since it is possible that some > categories will be handled both in kernel and in applications. > > The mechanism for specifying which Action frames are handled will > likely > need to be quite extensible.. This would require at least one > attribute > for specifying the Category value. Then based on the Category value, > we > may need to be able to specify the Action Value as an option > attribute. > In addition, the vendor specific Action and Public Action fields would > need to get OUI as another optional attribute. With vendor specific > values, we may even need yet another optional attribute to specify the > subtype of the vendor specific information since some protocols may be > handled in kernel and some in applications (i.e., more than one > application for the same vendor OUI). Ok let me recap what we have 1) regular action frames -- by category and maybe action subclass 2) vendor action frames -- category + OUI + vendor-specific stuff 3) public action (this is a category, can't find a vendor-subclass?) In all these cases, it would appear to be very easy to handle by just using the first N bytes. Case 1) would have 1 or two bytes, case 2) would be 4 or more bytes and case 3) seems like it could be done with 2 or more bytes ... I've gone ahead and implemented that, will follow up with patches once I give them some basic testing. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
