Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:47007 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756778Ab2IDLZj (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:25:39 -0400 Received: by obbuo13 with SMTP id uo13so10691079obb.19 for ; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 04:25:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1346146446-628-1-git-send-email-yeohchunyeow@gmail.com> <1346746298.3737.0.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <20120904102204.GA2541@w1.fi> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 19:25:38 +0800 Message-ID: (sfid-20120904_132542_145384_2721D8C3) Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath5k: add support of HW encryption in management frames From: Yeoh Chun-Yeow To: Jouni Malinen Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com, mickflemm@gmail.com, mcgrof@qca.qualcomm.com, ath5k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, Jouni I have retested with the following: case 1 with submitted patch: mesh1: ath5k nohwcrypt=1 mesh2: ath5k (no IEEE80211_KEY_FLAG_SW_MGMT) Result: Both of them are not able to ping each other. Also, the PREP action frame is not able to decrypted by another node. case 2 with submitted patch: mesh1: ath5k nohwcrypt=1 mesh2: ath5k nohwcrypt=1 Result: They are able to ping each other. case 3 with submitted patch but enable IEEE80211_KEY_FLAG_SW_MGMT: mesh1: ath5k nohwcrypt=1 mesh2: ath5k (with IEEE80211_KEY_FLAG_SW_MGMT) Result: They are able to ping each other case 4 with submitted patch but enable IEEE80211_KEY_FLAG_SW_MGMT: mesh1: ath5k (with IEEE80211_KEY_FLAG_SW_MGMT) mesh2: ath5k (with IEEE80211_KEY_FLAG_SW_MGMT) Result: Both of them are not able to ping each other. Also, the PREP action frame is not able to decrypted by another node. So can we conclude that hardware encryption is not working for both robust unicast management frame and also unicast data frame? I am confuse why on case 4, it is not working? Please advice. Thanks ---- Chun-Yeow On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Yeoh Chun-Yeow wrote: > Hi, Jouni > >> Depends on what those nodes were.. If they were both using the same >> ath5k implementation, then no, that would not be enough. > Both of nodes are using ath5k. > >> so working with AR2414 or even AR5213 does not necessarily mean that this would work >> with AR5210, AR5211, or AR5212. > Noted. > >> I would also verify that unicast data frames get processed in hardware and robust >> management frames in software. > I have retested with the following: > > mesh1: ath5k nohwcrypt=1 > mesh2: ath5k (no IEEE80211_KEY_FLAG_SW_MGMT) > Result: Both of them are not able to ping each other. Also, the PREP > action frame is not able to decrypted by another node. > > mesh1: ath5k nohwcrypt=1 > mesh2: ath5k nohwcrypt=1 > Result: They are able to ping each other. > > mesh1: ath5k nohwcrypt=1 > mesh2: ath5k (with IEEE80211_KEY_FLAG_SW_MGMT) > Result: They are able to ping each other > > mesh1: > mesh2I also try to enable back the IEEE80211_KEY_FLAG_SW_MGMT flags. > Also it does not work. So can we conclude that hardware encryption is > not working for both robust unicast management frame and also unicast > data frame? > > Please advice. Thanks > > ---- > Chun-Yeow