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 DC08637BE60 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2026 06:29:42 +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=1777444184; cv=none; b=eiyRR+YSADeIpX/1O/a6nf2tf2+m6I4ELP7jSAeaGnyhVIz7/CRnLuSyiwxJol/0JKfPjL1Dk2e5vM5AtvdMHq6ThMB32qwqI9Z9J9mzW9w4bKjnLzDA3yafqK+DN3sMkj8E5yxd3i1OglJx49Syi5qBmD5e6Hhfn0w9zBjOVKY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777444184; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+c6e+STxcG6LEc4lxAh0IccqAbBfd/cZ9YcB4Fur+Lg=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=qxx5wiW3r9weucM6Mj87Bk562IrgOuGt4UTGvQ/5aieT/xa6grBEegXZzQrrlGDDghnr/vUdn0ovEkyL53rvJc4LozEE1IW4iGq7UxtqqRvxBwyAmXvy+2oxWmOnJJiXi95y2zVhmOpeA62/LlYahakwUHQ7QowyrlTt/Z9pejo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=XkPLOOm3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none 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="XkPLOOm3" 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:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=+c6e+STxcG6LEc4lxAh0IccqAbBfd/cZ9YcB4Fur+Lg=; t=1777444182; x=1778653782; b=XkPLOOm3AaGKLk2rXCtFzvmSrR4mkKlnSs3e4F2cq/4JAjE zTZQUcqjdYC/mHX9oFHz8fdOqCLFV3+ijSadnCO8HxIjh/tGjzZk3lDqDmoPOS5wuKpSygIGMCG7S DZooRNj5ypkPmDwTY8OE7bQ86obiwptY4Rc56EsypdrlEmLtC05zLmnnOXrfa1DG4LsINHAGpYubw RxVg8CmG3V4huIFq+ohvuJzO2YkJv3FnrPGkUMIs20spRWQJBP4CqBIorEs5IzN1FT7Eo7mMEX0ZY d9pA99coNy4snhOWnb495Dl2jOizpk8d6YLhQd2bbBIP+TfkMBV1+ufjY8N1jCcw==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wHyQV-00000001sD1-27U6; Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:29:39 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless-next 2/2] wifi: cfg80211/mac80211: extend cfg80211_rx_assoc_resp_data() for assoc encryption From: Johannes Berg To: Kavita Kavita Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:29:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20260427150735.2391680-1-kavita.kavita@oss.qualcomm.com> <20260427150735.2391680-3-kavita.kavita@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) 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 Hi, Sorry I didn't get back to this yesterday. I see you now just sent another patch. > The attribute is intended to indicate that the entire exchange was encryp= ted, > not just the Response. For the Response frame, checking ieee80211_has_pro= tected() > is possible since the full frame is available in data->buf, but for the R= equest > frame only IEs are stored in ifmgd->assoc_req_ies, the MAC header is not = preserved, > so I cannot check the Protected bit for the Request. I guess that makes sense, fair enough. > While an unencrypted Request paired with an encrypted Response is unlikel= y in practice, > we did not want to leave that gap, so I used the epp_peer flag. That said= , if you think > checking the Protected bit on the Response frame alone is sufficient, we = are fine with > that approach too. It's actually also something wpa_s could check, but I suppose it's plausible that non-wpa_s observers of these events might be interested. > In the wireless-next tip, there are already commits that combine both cfg= 80211 > and mac80211 changes together,=C2=A0 True, but that's usually if the whole thing is small enough I guess? > so since the assoc_encrypted field addition in > cfg80211 and the mac80211 epp_peer lookup that sets it are tightly depend= ent on > each other, I kept them in the same commit. If you prefer them split into= two > separate commits, I can do that. Will update the commit as well. I think in this case I might have just preferred to have the first commit add *all* the infrastructure, and indicate that it's done for assoc for the reasons above, and then have the second just be mac80211 to fill it? Not super important though I guess. johannes