From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.atheros.com ([12.36.123.2]:49875 "EHLO mail.atheros.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752384AbZA3Qka (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:40:30 -0500 Received: from mail.atheros.com ([10.10.20.108]) by sidewinder.atheros.com for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:40:30 -0800 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:39:44 -0800 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Johannes Berg CC: Luis Rodriguez , Jouni Malinen , "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mac80211: do not TX injected frames when not allowed Message-ID: <20090130163944.GC6534@tesla> (sfid-20090130_174038_016810_8C7436B8) References: <1233111019-7827-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <1233313382.30970.3.camel@johannes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <1233313382.30970.3.camel@johannes.local> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 03:03:02AM -0800, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 18:50 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Monitor mode is able to TX by using injected frames. We should > > not allow injected frames to be sent unless allowed by regulatory > > rules. Since AP mode uses a monitor interfaces to transmit > > management frames we have to take care to not break AP mode as > > well while resolving this. We deal with this by allowing compliant > > APs solutions to inform mac80211 if their monitor interface is > > intended to be used for an AP by setting a cfg80211 flag for the > > monitor interface. hostapd, for example, currently does its own > > checks to ensure AP mode is not used on channels which require radar > > detection. Once such solutions are available it can can enable this > > flag. > > > + * @NL80211_MNTR_FLAG_AP_MGT: this monitor interface is used for AP mode > > + * to be able to inject management frames. > > Come to think of it, is that really a good name? The intention is "will > check for radar" but then we don't even have a way to check for radar > yet! > > So maybe we should leave that out, and introduce it with proper radar > support later? Dude, that's the approach I had in my first patch for this, you had suggested to add this so I did. Anyway yeah I agree, heh. I'll send v5. Luis