From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.188]:56971 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764756AbXHVTDZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:03:25 -0400 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g13so196449nfb for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:03:22 -0700 (PDT) To: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] mac80211: allow drivers to indicate failed FCS/PLCP checksum Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:11:03 +0200 Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <20070821161845.165557000@sipsolutions.net> <200708212307.59926.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <1187774561.4314.0.camel@johannes.berg> In-Reply-To: <1187774561.4314.0.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Message-Id: <200708222111.03164.IvDoorn@gmail.com> From: Ivo van Doorn Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 23:07 +0200, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > > Do we need another flag to indicate ICV errors? > > rt2x00 has the following fields to indicate problems during hardware decryption: > > ICV error -> How to report this to mac80211? > > MIC error -> The RX_FLAG_MMIC_ERROR flag can be set > > invalid key -> Could best be done by just not setting RX_FLAG_DECRYPTED I assume. > > I think you either just drop the packet or give it to mac80211 decrypted > but with ICV still on so that mac80211 will verify the ICV (again) and > do whatever is appropriate. But I think dropping it ought to be fine. Do > we want this for monitoring maybe? Not sure how interesting a frame with a ICV error will be, on the other hand I am not even sure how a frame with a ICV error looks like in rt2x00, discovering that will probably happen during the hardware encryption implementation. ;) Ivo