Hi Alexander,
aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 08:53:57 -0500:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 8:34 AM Alexander Aring <aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 12:35 PM Miquel Raynal
> > <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alexander,
> > >
> > > > > > > > +static int nl802154_trigger_scan(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > + struct cfg802154_registered_device *rdev = info->user_ptr[0];
> > > > > > > > + struct net_device *dev = info->user_ptr[1];
> > > > > > > > + struct wpan_dev *wpan_dev = dev->ieee802154_ptr;
> > > > > > > > + struct wpan_phy *wpan_phy = &rdev->wpan_phy;
> > > > > > > > + struct cfg802154_scan_request *request;
> > > > > > > > + u8 type;
> > > > > > > > + int err;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + /* Monitors are not allowed to perform scans */
> > > > > > > > + if (wpan_dev->iftype == NL802154_IFTYPE_MONITOR)
> > > > > > > > + return -EPERM;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > btw: why are monitors not allowed?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess I had the "active scan" use case in mind which of course does
> > > > > > not work with monitors. Maybe I can relax this a little bit indeed,
> > > > > > right now I don't remember why I strongly refused scans on monitors.
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't it that scans really work close to phy level? Means in this case
> > > > > we disable mostly everything of MAC filtering on the transceiver side.
> > > > > Then I don't see any reasons why even monitors can't do anything, they
> > > > > also can send something. But they really don't have any specific
> > > > > source address set, so long addresses are none for source addresses, I
> > > > > don't see any problem here. They also don't have AACK handling, but
> > > > > it's not required for scan anyway...
> > > > >
> > > > > If this gets too complicated right now, then I am also fine with
> > > > > returning an error here, we can enable it later but would it be better
> > > > > to use ENOTSUPP or something like that in this case? EPERM sounds like
> > > > > you can do that, but you don't have the permissions.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > For me a scan should also be possible from iwpan phy $PHY scan (or
> > > > whatever the scan command is, or just enable beacon)... to go over the
> > > > dev is just a shortcut for "I mean whatever the phy is under this dev"
> > > > ?
> > >
> > > Actually only coordinators (in a specific state) should be able to send
> > > beacons, so I am kind of against allowing that shortcut, because there
> > > are usually two dev interfaces on top of the phy's, a regular "NODE"
> > > and a "COORD", so I don't think we should go that way.
> > >
> > > For scans however it makes sense, I've added the necessary changes in
> > > wpan-tools. The TOP_LEVEL(scan) macro however does not support using
> > > the same command name twice because it creates a macro, so this one
> > > only supports a device name (the interface command has kind of the same
> > > situation and uses a HIDDEN() macro which cannot be used here).
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I was thinking about scanning only.
> >
> > > So in summary here is what is supported:
> > > - dev <dev> beacon
> > > - dev <dev> scan trigger|abort
> > > - phy <phy> scan trigger|abort
> > > - dev <dev> scan (the blocking one, which triggers, listens and returns)
> > >
> > > Do you agree?
> > >
> >
> > Okay, yes. I trust you.
>
> btw: at the point when a scan requires a source address... it cannot
> be done because then a scan is related to a MAC instance -> an wpan
> interface and we need to bind to it. But I think it doesn't?
I'm not sure I follow you here. You mean in case of active scan? The
operation is always tight to a device in the end, even if you provide a
phy in userspace. So I guess it's not a problem. Or maybe I didn't get
the question right?
Thanks,
Miquèl
