On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> - baselen = (u8 *) mgmt->u.probe_resp.variable - (u8 *) mgmt;
>> + switch (stype) {
>> + case IEEE80211_STYPE_PROBE_RESP:
>> + ies = (u8 *) mgmt->u.probe_resp.variable;
>> + break;
>> + case IEEE80211_STYPE_BEACON:
>> + ies = (u8 *) mgmt->u.beacon.variable;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>
> Does that really make sense? the offset is the same anyway and we don't
> get here with other frames.
I don't think so:
struct {
__le64 timestamp;
__le16 beacon_int;
__le16 capab_info;
/* followed by some of SSID, Supported rates,
* FH Params, DS Params, CF Params, IBSS Params, TIM */
u8 variable[0];
} __attribute__ ((packed)) beacon;
struct {
/* only variable items: SSID, Supported rates */
u8 variable[0];
} __attribute__ ((packed)) probe_req;
True, we don't currently get probe responses in a mesh, but the
function _is_ named "_rx_bcn_presp" so we should be ready to handle
these in the future. Previously we always getting the wrong offset.
Thomas
--
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
