On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 10:47 -0800, Javier Cardona wrote: > >> + * @is_secure: or not > > > > Given what we just discussed over in the other thread, should we rename > > this to "userspace_station_mgmt" or something like that? > > Are you suggesting to change the name of the flag both in nl80211 and cfg80211? Yeah, I was. > Currently ENABLE_SECURITY means "let userspace manage stations", but > also "ok to accept mesh management frames from secure mesh peers". > And when the Authenticated Mesh Peering Exchange is implemented, it > will probably mean "verify mesh peering frames in userspace" and > "protect mesh peering frames". You either do all these tasks or none, > so for nl80211 I would prefer a single flag. Indeed. I forgot about the RSN checking part etc. I suppose we should just leave it as is then. > > Also, does it make sense to advertise support for this somehow? > > Otherwise the new tools will have strange failure cases on older > > kernels; > > Ah, I see. Older kernels would not return an error to userspace if an > attempt to set a non existing flag was made, right? Right. > Are you suggesting to define something like an > NL80211_MESHCONF_CAPABILITIES mask? I haven't thought about how I'd do it really -- yes something like that might make sense. > > and I can also imagine situations where the mesh APIs are in > > firmware or so that can't cope with userspace station mgmt. > > Ah mesh in firmware... who would want to do that? :) :-) johannes -- 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
