Re: [Bridge] Problem with bridge (mcast-to-ucast + hairpin) and Broadcom's 802.11f in their FullMAC fw

[Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>]

On 2/27/2018 11:14 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> Sending with a fixed linux-wireless ML address. Please kindly send your
> replies using linux-wireless@
>
> On 02/27/2018 11:08 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> I've problem when using OpenWrt/LEDE on a home router with Broadcom's
>> FullMAC WiFi chipset.
>>
>>
>> First of all OpenWrt/LEDE uses bridge interface for LAN network with:
>> 1) IFLA_BRPORT_MCAST_TO_UCAST
>> 2) Clients isolation in hostapd
>> 3) Hairpin mode enabled
>>
>> For more details please see Linus's patch description:
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9530669/
>> and maybe hairpin mode patch:
>> https://lwn.net/Articles/347344/
>>
>> Short version: in that setup packets received from a bridged wireless
>> interface can be handled back to it for transmission.
>>
>>
>> Now, Broadcom's firmware for their FullMAC chipsets in AP mode
>> supports an obsoleted 802.11f AKA IAPP standard. It's a roaming
>> standard that was replaced by 802.11r.
>>
>> Whenever a new station associates, firmware generates a packet like:
>> ff ff ff ff  ff ff ec 10  7b 5f ?? ??  00 06 00 01  af 81 01 00
>> (just masked 2 bytes of my MAC)
>>
>> For mode details you can see discussion in my brcmfmac patch thread:
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10191451/
>>
>>
>> The problem is that bridge (in setup as above) handles such a packet
>> back to the device.

 From reading the referenced links I understand the hairpin mode is 
causing the packet to be sent back to the device, and the hairpin mode 
is required for MCAST_TO_UCAST, right?

>> That makes Broadcom's FullMAC firmware believe that a given station
>> just connected to another AP in a network (which doesn't even exist).
>> As a result firmware immediately disassociates that station. It's
>> simply impossible to connect to the router. Every association is
>> followed by immediate disassociation.
>>
>>
>> Can you see any solution for this problem? Is that an option to stop
>> multicast-to-unicast from touching 802.11f packets? Some other ideas?
>> Obviously I can't modify Broadcom's firmware and drop that obsoleted
>> standard.

As far as I can tell you are correct that the 802.11f amendment was 
never adopted into the 802.11 standard. I will ask internally if we 
still have a reason for carrying it in our firmware.

Regards,
Arend