On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Eliad Peller <eliad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Eliad Peller <eliad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Use the sta_state notifications to ROC when a station
>>> is about to connect, and CROC respectively on
>>> authorization (success) / deletion (failure).
>>>
>>> Change the wl12xx_update_sta_state() flow to bail out
>>> only on error, so multiple code blocks could refer
>>> to the same state.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eliad Peller <eliad@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> + /* clear ROCs on failure or authorization */
>>> + if (is_sta &&
>>> + (new_state == IEEE80211_STA_AUTHORIZED ||
>>> + new_state == IEEE80211_STA_NOTEXIST)) {
>>> + if (test_bit(wlvif->role_id, wl->roc_map))
>>> + wl12xx_croc(wl, wlvif->role_id);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (is_sta &&
>>> + old_state == IEEE80211_STA_NOTEXIST &&
>>> + new_state == IEEE80211_STA_NONE) {
>>> + if (find_first_bit(wl->roc_map,
>>> + WL12XX_MAX_ROLES) >= WL12XX_MAX_ROLES) {
>>> + WARN_ON(wlvif->role_id == WL12XX_INVALID_ROLE_ID);
>>> + wl12xx_roc(wl, wlvif, wlvif->role_id, wlvif->channel);
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>
>> what about AP mode? we don't have an opportunistic ROC there as well
>> for connecting stations?
>
> yeah, we do. but since in order to really be effective it requires
> supplicant changes that weren't upstreamed yet (adding non-associated
> station), i preferred postponing it to another patchset.
> on the other hand, this might help protecting the EAPOL exchange even
> in its current form, so i guess we can upstream it even before the
> supplicant changes.
yea. since this is opportunistic, it can't really hurt.
--
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
