From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10B07416856 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 08:10:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789027827; cv=none; b=rk7P1sBObrP+i7pcKRuQAfVZ4pxAfQGymKnNL8sIgIwdu0Wh3LkI4QTDja0MYtV7Dz2tpyg8h53j3nuS2EbKiFPEyndnhEVLpO3w/mleuoTvxjhM0skXYmbH/BaXtzdK3vBK2cfAcS7KoH3rUhhhIFV3hs9wp619RczOZtlmCEI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789027827; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DdltgWTcw1pOWX1b+F7A+b8GrP8WAWd2QQOxRXBuZec=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=tDKYysP35FkNSjpnETWB06PqWUFzMWgHzGQVpc0tnghWbJJ9VKCGB+/xMUSPkG+XLXKzohmcOs8+PNajGa6y61eUKQs841Omk0fZHa5AhKj1iJofT1A2vDCHsk2ZvOFtvi0OhGPbhQoZPnPkPabTEY0gHfquytYRF1aH82OQKGk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=ROYlXlmn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="ROYlXlmn" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=NXZASAqzaQM1h2ctxsWSXtMKbp4v+CpvXMXW/8ZWzvI=; t=1789027824; x=1790237424; b=ROYlXlmnNxnFKLPbCySAIEJu6wfvSz3U6HejLVew62o9IQB tBp+jojKVNJwkoR2wN40MyQ23digesttGCnwjLObIJ9+OLk8Rai0DjBpvRV8irHA1h8VhKTPJCWmw hRQ12XaDddUrGSydRmwTja19GOIyOzKbye6EeF5J9jHzmtTCnefosMdzzuwC3h40JGZy6SL/+8rnt w8TqZePXcNQl3iBSNeBPlDP0ILVKZkI4LYoXwbBUFZ8a0RJEI6celcCmzC7hjgnjrf6xLx+UlH+xB r27SbhgQGdoMC97b4uFGPAg+w7+SOgGJ9Fd14DBAfMUqw969g7l3CnDrgI0ZG2Bw==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__ECDSA_SECP256R1_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1x4ZrK-00000009tEz-0prZ; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 10:10:14 +0200 Message-ID: <053ee8a223389f533a830c15146ccd1ecc631188.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless-next] wifi: mac80211: Guard FILS discovery and unsolicited broadcast probe response From: Johannes Berg To: Manish Dharanenthiran Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 10:10:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20260820-fils-v1-1-56df490f5bb6@oss.qualcomm.com> <63ab746686edee2e7919edb1cf6c5ce06e9999d0.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.60.2 (3.60.2-1.fc44) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Thu, 2026-09-10 at 13:14 +0530, Manish Dharanenthiran wrote: >=20 > On 9/4/2026 3:46 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 2026-08-20 at 21:37 +0530, Manish Dharanenthiran wrote: > > >=20 > > > +++ b/net/mac80211/cfg.c > > > @@ -1138,7 +1138,7 @@ static int ieee80211_set_fils_discovery(struct = ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata, > > > struct fils_discovery_data *new, *old =3D NULL; > > > struct ieee80211_fils_discovery *fd; > > > =20 > > > - if (!params->update) > > > + if (!params->update || link_conf->nontransmitted) > > > return 0; > >=20 > > So why shouldn't we just reject it? > > =20 >=20 > Currently in user-space there is no restriction on sending this for=20 > non-transmitting BSS, thus it may send this for those BSSs as well,=20 > however the driver will use only for Tx BSS and ignore this config for= =20 > Non-Tx BSS. Returning an error here could be fatal because failing=20 > start_ap or update_ap operation would result in failure of bringing up= =20 > those BSSs. >=20 > We are working on the patch to update the behavior in hostap as well to= =20 > not set this for Non-Tx BSS, but to maintain the backward compatibility,= =20 > and the update from any other user-space application thus doesn't handle= =20 > in a similar way, we ignored the update silently and kept as no-op. Then please document it at least in the commit message, but better also in a comment here. johannes