Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f176.google.com ([209.85.128.176]:34222 "EHLO mail-wr0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751486AbdERISr (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 May 2017 04:18:47 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f176.google.com with SMTP id l9so27753627wre.1 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 01:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/9] nl80211: add support for PTK/GTK handshake offload To: Johannes Berg References: <1493808134-4074-1-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> <1495030794.2442.21.camel@sipsolutions.net> Cc: linux-wireless , "hostap@lists.infradead.org" From: Arend Van Spriel Message-ID: <1de42f39-1912-349b-e20d-4b5c3c44909f@broadcom.com> (sfid-20170518_101853_894885_0E032B40) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:18:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1495030794.2442.21.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: + hostap list On 17-5-2017 16:19, Johannes Berg wrote: > Hi, > > I think this looks really good. One thing though: > >> Another change is the >> addition of the flag ATTR_WANT_1X_4WAY_HS that user-space has to pass >> in CONNECT request. Some drivers may need to be aware before the PMK >> is programmed through SET_PMK request. > > I wonder how we really should do this, and if this is good enough. > > There might be drivers that simply don't support the non-offloaded > case, so they assume you always have the newer wpa_s. That would seem > to be a legitimate decision, since the compatibility with that might > not make much sense for a completely new driver, and it might be a lot > of work to support TK operations. > > We should therefore probably set the expectation that wpa_s - if it's > new enough - always uses the offloaded functionality and always sets > the WANT_1X. Then this is even better with such drivers, since they can > immediately reject the connect() command if want_1x isn't set. > > Thoughts? Personally I am fine with this and it is how I tested it. So no network configuration or driver parameter in wpa_s.conf (mainly because I am lazy ;-) ). However, if the driver supports both offload and non-offload why not leave it up to user-space. Might be useful if people can try either way for example when debugging connection issues. Regards, Arend