Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] cfg80211/nl80211: Enable drivers to implement mac address based ACL

[Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vthiagar@qca.qualcomm.com>]

On Wednesday 02 January 2013 06:26 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 10:44 +0530, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote:
>>
>> On Friday 28 December 2012 06:26 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2012-12-28 at 12:31 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2012-12-28 at 15:51 +0530, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> V4:
>>>>> 	- Change it accordingly so that at any time the driver can
>>>>> 	  support either white or black list not both.
>>>>
>>>> I was under the impression you needed both. Unless I get confirmation
>>>> from Kalle and/or Jouni I'll not apply this lest it needs to be changed
>>>> in yet again incompatible ways later ...
>>>
>>> Actually I just talked to Jouni again and it seems that the best way to
>>> think of the combined black/whitelist is to treat it as a whitelist +
>>> "notification avoidance optimisation list". The key here being
>>> optimisation, we don't really have to worry about it in terms of feature
>>> advertising etc. since it can be ignored/managed by the driver.
>>
>> Sure. Is the assumption here is the stations in optimisation list \
>> either be denied or allowed which is specific to driver?.
>
> ?
> Basically we would have two modes:
>   * whitelist
>   * blacklist
>
> (each might or might not be supported by the driver)
>
> When a station is on the blacklist it's ignored. When it's on the
> whitelist it's allowed. When it's on neither, but a list is configured,
> an event might be sent. When there's a black-&  whitelist, the blacklist
> is this an optimisation to suppress the event, so we don't need a third
> mode "black- and whitelist supported".

Thanks!, I was really confused with this optimization part.
If I get it correctly, there needs to be a mechanism for
driver to advertise its dual list capability to user space.

Vasanth