Re: [RFC] mac80211: Filter duplicate IE ids

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 06:24 -0800, Paul Stewart wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Johannes Berg
> <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 17:59 -0800, Paul Stewart wrote:
> >> mac80211 is lenient with respect to reception of corrupted beacons.
> >> Even if the frame is corrupted as a whole, the available IE elements
> >> are still passed back and accepted, sometimes replacing legitimate
> >> data.  It is unknown to what extent this "feature" is made use of,
> >> but it is clear that in some cases, this is detrimental.  One such
> >> case is reported in http://crosbug.com/26832 where an AP corrupts
> >> its beacons but not its probe responses.
> >>
> >> One approach would be to completely reject frames with invaid data
> >> (for example, if the last tag extends beyond the end of the enclosing
> >> PDU).  The enclosed approach is much more conservative: we simply
> >> prevent later IEs from overwriting the state from previous ones.
> >> This approach hopes that there might be some salient data in the
> >> IE stream before the corruption, and seeks to at least prevent that
> >> data from being overwritten.  This approach will fix the case above.
> >>
> >> Short of any statistics gathering in the various forms of AP breakage,
> >> it's not possible to ascertain the side effects of more stringent
> >> discarding of data.
> >
> > Hmmm. This seems reasonable, but in the given example (in the bug
> > report) it will at least lose the WMM info (since it's corrupt) and the
> > HT info, as well as WPS (which is probably not relevant.)
> 
> As you can see from the association request, the STA appears to hold
> an amalgamation of the broken rate information in the beacon and the
> correct HT/WMM information from the probe response.  In the
> association request there's both HT and WMM info, as it was able to
> get it from the probe response.

Ah, indeed, I hadn't even looked at that.

> > I suppose better to accept such service degradation than not connect,
> > but I wonder if we should log a warning when we actually try to use such
> > an AP?
> 
> Let me know where you'd like it.

How about having a flag in the BSS struct (ieee80211_bss) and printing a
message when we use that BSS struct for assoc? E.g. in
ieee80211_mgd_assoc()? I'm not sure I fully understand where this
actually has any effect.

johannes