On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 09:29 -0700, Thomas Pedersen wrote:
> > @@ -1915,9 +1934,12 @@ ieee80211_rx_h_mesh_fwding(struct ieee80211_rx_data *rx)
> > if (is_multicast_ether_addr(hdr->addr1)) {
> > mpp_addr = hdr->addr3;
> > proxied_addr = mesh_hdr->eaddr1;
> > - } else {
> > + } else if (mesh_hdr->flags & MESH_FLAGS_AE_A5_A6) {
>
> OK, but now the first check (is_multicast_ether_addr()) implies AE_A4
> flag. It seems cleaner to just be explicit about what you're asking
> for both cases.
Well, I dunno. That seems like a change that might be correct in the
semantics of mesh, but it's not the minimal technical change that I'm
after to make sure we have all the data we access.
This may not be valid in mesh, but if we were to receive a multicast
frame with AE_A5_A5 instead of AE_A4 then we could still use eaddr1,
though we'd probably drop the frame later or something.
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
