Re: [PATCH 5/9] cfg80211/nl80211: add authorized flag to roaming event

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 12:05 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> 
> > the mobility domain does not require new 802.1X authentication, but
> > roaming to another mobility domain does.
> 
> Not sure about the terminology here. Is "mobility domain" the same
> as  "ESS" which stands for extended service set as definced in
> 802.11  standard. If so, I would prefer use of that term here.

No. "Mobility domain" was defined in 802.11r, it's unrelated to ESS.

> > + * @authorized: true if the 802.1X authentication was done by the
> > driver or is
> > + *	not needed (e.g., when Fast Transition protocol was
> > used), false
> > + *	otherwise. Ignored for networks that don't use 802.1X
> > authentication.
> 
> It is not ignored in this patch so it is expected user-space
> behavior you are describing, which is not really needed here in
> cfg80211 driver api.

Still kinda makes sense though to give that hint to the driver authors,
don't you think? Though it should be pretty clear ...

> >    *	well to remain backwards compatible.
> >    * @NL80211_CMD_ROAM: request that the card roam (currently not
> > implemented),
> 
> Do we want to keep this comment about the request scenario. Is it
> likely implemented soon/ever?

Heh, good question. Probably not, but it's kinda an unrelated cleanup,
no?

> >    *	sent as an event when the card/driver roamed by itself.
> > + *	When used as an event, and the driver roamed in a
> > network that requires
> > + *	802.1X authentication,
> > %NL80211_ATTR_CONNECTION_AUTHORIZED should be set
> > + *	if the 802.1X authentication was done by the driver or
> > if roaming was
> > + *	done using Fast Transition protocol (in which case
> > 802.1X authentication
> > + *	is not needed). If %NL80211_ATTR_CONNECTION_AUTHORIZED
> > is not set,
> > + *	user space is responsible for the 802.1X authentication.
> 
> Would you consider using NL80211_ATTR_PORT_AUTHORIZED instead
> referring to the 802.1X port entities.

I guess that makes sense, yeah.

johannes