Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.152]:52242 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932238AbaAaOLZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 09:11:25 -0500 Message-ID: <1391177479.4141.23.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20140131_151128_617707_AE9AE5A8) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] cfg80211: Enable GO operation on additional channels From: Johannes Berg To: Ilan Peer Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:11:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1390818118-27261-4-git-send-email-ilan.peer@intel.com> (sfid-20140127_112147_514798_01405A03) References: <1390818118-27261-1-git-send-email-ilan.peer@intel.com> <1390818118-27261-4-git-send-email-ilan.peer@intel.com> (sfid-20140127_112147_514798_01405A03) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 12:21 +0200, Ilan Peer wrote: > It is assumed that such restrictions are enforced by user space. > Furthermore, it is assumed, that if the conditions that allowed for > the operation of the GO on such a channel change, i.e., the station > interface disconnected from the AP, it is the responsibility of user > space to evacuate the GO from the channel. For the latter here, don't we need some sort of flag with userspace saying "trust me, I know what I'm doing"? Or put another way - how does this not make us break compliance when running with old versions of wpa_supplicant? johannes