From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:2243 "EHLO c60.cesmail.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751382AbZERUEi (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2009 16:04:38 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: allow wext to remove keys that don't exist From: Pavel Roskin To: Johannes Berg Cc: John Linville , Jouni Malinen , linux-wireless , "Guy, Wey-Yi W" , Samuel Ortiz In-Reply-To: <1242669396.29049.2.camel@johannes.local> References: <1242669396.29049.2.camel@johannes.local> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:04:36 -0400 Message-Id: <1242677076.30019.5.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 19:56 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Some applications using wireless extensions expect to be able to > remove a key that doesn't exist. One example is wpa_supplicant > which doesn't actually change behaviour when running into an > error while trying to do that, but it prints an error message > which users interpret as wpa_supplicant having problems. It sounds like you are working around a userspace problem in the kernel. > The safe thing to do is not change the behaviour of wireless > extensions any more, so when the driver reports -ENOENT let > the wext bridge code return success to userspace. To guarantee > this, also document that drivers should return -ENOENT when the > key doesn't exist. You patch is changing the behavior or wireless extensions. It would be much more reasonable for wpa_supplicant not to remove non-existent keys or (if it's unsafe or non-practical for some reason) not to report -ENOENT to the user. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin