From: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com>
To: Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: radiotap for TX
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:27:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <467AFB5F.6050100@errno.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <467AE9D8.2030602@warmcat.com>
[radiotap mailing list dropped since it is members only]
Andy Green wrote:
> Sam Leffler wrote:
>
>> Note that using a monitor mode interface for transmit is a bad idea. It
>> is likely you will encounter devices that disallow any packet transmit
>> when operating in monitor mode. In practice this can be worked around
>> by using a non-monitor operating mode for the device (e.g. adhoc mode
>> w/o setting up beacons) but exporting this notion to user mode is bad
>> IMO. In net80211 there is an adhoc-demo mode which is essentially adhoc
>> mode which was originally added for functionality found in old lucent
>> cards but more recently has been used for building applications that
>> want a "raw 802.11 device".
>
> Hi -
>
> In mac80211 you can run multiple network interfaces off the one physical
> device, so you can have an associated WPA connection on one network
> interface and another logical "monitor mode" network interface up on the
> one physical device. "Monitor mode" in this case can be the results of
> a promiscuous hardware RX that is filtered for the Managed mode logical
> interface ... this is AIUI. So in that way "Monitor Mode" no longer
> means a single modal device setting, but really the delivery somehow of
> packets to a logical network interface that belongs to the physical device.
I've had working vap code for >3 years.
>
> Injecting down a "monitor mode interface" then only means to use a
> logical network interface that locally is configured to "Monitor Mode",
> it doesn't have the same definite implication for physical device
> configuration as before mac80211. (Well.. AIUI). So hopefully this
> objection may not apply.
As I described, some devices may allow rx-only operation on channels
otherwise disallowed by regulatory constraints. As such overloading
monitor operation with transmit is just a bad idea if you want to take
full advantage of what h/w provides. I'm just suggesting that you're
defining an abstraction that's going to get you into trouble.
Sam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-21 22:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-20 21:44 radiotap for TX Johannes Berg
2007-06-21 17:55 ` [Radiotap] " David Young
2007-06-25 6:39 ` Johannes Berg
2007-06-21 20:49 ` Sam Leffler
2007-06-21 21:12 ` Andy Green
2007-06-21 22:27 ` Sam Leffler [this message]
2007-06-21 22:53 ` Andy Green
2007-06-25 7:24 ` Johannes Berg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=467AFB5F.6050100@errno.com \
--to=sam@errno.com \
--cc=andy@warmcat.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).