Return-path: Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:63553 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755776Ab2ATVmR convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:42:17 -0500 Received: by iacb35 with SMTP id b35so121068iac.19 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:42:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1327091044.9857.8.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> References: <20120119182033.5F60358073@lefflers.sfo.corp.google.com> <1327069053.9857.3.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1327091044.9857.8.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:42:15 -0800 Message-ID: (sfid-20120120_224220_898735_CC6AEFDF) Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] mac80211: support fixed rate packet injection From: Sam Leffler To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 10:44 -0800, Sam Leffler wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Johannes Berg > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 09:53 -0800, Sam Leffler wrote: > > > > > > > + ? ? if (fixed_rate != -1) { > > > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? struct ieee80211_channel *chan = local->hw.conf.channel; > > > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? struct ieee80211_supported_band *sband = > > > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? local->hw.wiphy->bands[chan->band]; > > > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? struct ieee80211_tx_rate *rates = info->control.rates; > > > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? int i; > > > > + > > > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? if (fixed_rate_flags & IEEE80211_TX_RC_MCS) { > > > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? WARN_ON(!sband->ht_cap.ht_supported); > > > > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? rates[0].idx = fixed_rate; > > > > > > Unless I missed something, this would be *trivial* to trigger by > > > injection -- doesn't seem like a good idea to me. > > > > > > > Can unprivileged users inject packets? ?Is your preference to generate > > an error or just suppress the warning? > > I'm not sure, but it doesn't really matter -- even printing an error > here is quite pointless. > Not sure why you say that. ?If you submit a packet and it's tossed w/o any indication (e.g. you mistakenly set the channel wrong so the driver tosses the frame) then it's not obvious what's going on. Anyway, I'll remove the warning. -Sam