Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:60411 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753813AbZJPSbM (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:31:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:20:40 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Johannes Berg Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Luis Rodriguez , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "ic.felix@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: fix SME warning by removing stale BSS upon assoc failure Message-ID: <20091016182039.GC6438@tuxdriver.com> References: <1255481442-27130-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <1255562895.4095.297.camel@johannes.local> <20091014233528.GA4172@tux> <1255685492.4095.309.camel@johannes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1255685492.4095.309.camel@johannes.local> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 06:31:32PM +0900, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 16:35 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > Well sure, but why do we want to keep the authentication present if > > association failed? And as a matter of fact it lingers there forever. > > Is that desired behaviour? > > Yes, well, the SME is supposed to clean it up or try the association > again (possibly with different parameters in the IEs, e.g. different WPA > settings). The cfg80211 SME certainly does so (it deauthenticates). > > > > > +++ b/net/mac80211/mlme.c > > > > @@ -1463,11 +1463,11 @@ ieee80211_rx_mgmt_assoc_resp(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata, > > > > if (status_code != WLAN_STATUS_SUCCESS) { > > > > printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s: AP denied association (code=%d)\n", > > > > sdata->dev->name, status_code); > > > > list_del(&wk->list); > > > > kfree(wk); > > > > - return RX_MGMT_CFG80211_ASSOC; > > > > + return RX_MGMT_CFG80211_DEAUTH; > > > > > > I'm sure this is correct. Maybe cfg80211 doesn't react properly to > > > getting an assoc frame with non-zero status? > > > > I see, will have to take a look when I get a chance then, not now though. > > > Actually can you elaborate a little on the logic here as to why > > we want to issue an association command with non-zero status to > > cfg80211 instead of just knocking off the current authentication > > and killing the BSS? > > Is the above sufficient? Btw, please don't talk about "killing the BSS", > you're not talking about a BSS struct but rather one of the mlme work > structs. So, should this patch be dropped? It is currently in w-t... John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.