From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36D8415748F for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 09:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726563814; cv=none; b=q2STmtvy7bfvkAij+tqY+y4jCjJCJQXbR+WZE8h3jDyaPMHLZODw6tujYelQD4kqLFiVfSPrevaFWhRhME3lQaBr54rhRrXvakQb+BTikDztfPz8QXsy72H9N4l4POTQ4x1lupxspWQAKZlmsJf5FoG/BV+uaT0C7ORWg6LON24= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726563814; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gDb6is9h3aygCvo98TjzWRCzIca3atfYq0oXyXuGF/4=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=UzdNJ/sxow12oAm4pi9sCXar1pYGIj/QjYhcMDlK1jsVkjx3xoMN42gg5BA5Jvo0TXxARP1hyoRrxFY3LlbabMMPXxY6mhJEtjAIrWmppm2u6ZgyH0AZHTOSKynn8NuxYXj1/1baxK5OfkQgehJkpyNh0kqto8i62yYuht1KaAo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=Za0DVAOP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="Za0DVAOP" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=gDb6is9h3aygCvo98TjzWRCzIca3atfYq0oXyXuGF/4=; t=1726563813; x=1727773413; b=Za0DVAOPpZxXWObZAJocJwfX4WIfvU2tu34JtgQMXd5yHZ7 WTzhstsqYp13xrCUPtE8Ccuestlu5qLoi0xcFlPONUCsW+dNEkBhg9XtcgGQC/S9WfpNuz5nstNgi Jt1c4X3lAIaoGOFtH8jv/nZ+svfVNBNaa6wJCw39RDm/8U7s/xjvlkwSgYmXLYNA31yvvQxF7Ehd9 rv8EUkPGH+rkBD1MzCrHz/7oGN9E1VDsAgR/WeU0aUMzPNGOkOwzL6uq2MGBDhC4daHYOPRPO4aDQ GdPJiyTGv8dAoEMDi5WB67/etHPyv5cuKl/twn6in8mhoYKY5pNRLdJGWP94DA8w==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1sqU7O-0000000E6ei-2uTn; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 11:03:31 +0200 Message-ID: <88acd1fa81f534643bc2d94c909673375f2973ad.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [RFC 6/6] wifi: mac80211: check vif radio_mask for monitor mode rx From: Johannes Berg To: Felix Fietkau , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 11:03:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <7d713206957ec56dc297d5645203b45341578588.1722885720.git-series.nbd@nbd.name> <01d7528bc15ee682fbe2f200bdbf39066b39309a.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.4 (3.52.4-1.fc40) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Fri, 2024-08-23 at 19:33 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 23.08.24 12:23, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-08-05 at 21:23 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > > > When restricting a monitor vif to only operate on a specific set of r= adios, > > > filter out rx packets belonging to other radios. This only works if d= rivers > > > fill in radio_valid and radio_idx in the rx status. > >=20 > > Why does the driver need to provide the radio, it already provides the > > frequency? > >=20 > > But then I wonder if this doesn't go a step too far? This is pretty muc= h > > pretending that monitor only exists on a specific sub-radio, but ... > > what for? Even userspace could filter on the frequency. > >=20 > > I mean ... I get that you're trying to preserve a notion that you had > > that an interface exists on a given PHY and they're all separate, but > > they're not really separate any more, get used to it? >=20 > Well, there's a performance aspect as well. Which I'd firmly put into the "premature optimisation" basket at this stage though. johannes