Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:35920 "EHLO mail-wm0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751150AbdFCIIk (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jun 2017 04:08:40 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 7so40155035wmo.1 for ; Sat, 03 Jun 2017 01:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/9] nl80211: add support for PTK/GTK handshake offload To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless , "hostap@lists.infradead.org" References: <1493808134-4074-1-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> <1495030794.2442.21.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1de42f39-1912-349b-e20d-4b5c3c44909f@broadcom.com> <1495099355.2553.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> <4e0672aa-51bc-115f-32b7-b1a8eb747e5b@broadcom.com> <1495104012.2553.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1495189263.3274.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1495448886.2653.12.camel@sipsolutions.net> <29d43b7d-6cb6-0734-6a52-31fa98e9c1bc@broadcom.com> <1496050303.2467.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> From: Arend van Spriel Message-ID: (sfid-20170603_100844_609947_E0C81620) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 10:08:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1496050303.2467.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 29-05-17 11:31, Johannes Berg wrote: > So if something supports the following: > > * client: offloaded 4-way-HS only > * AP: not offloaded 4-way-HS only > > Then you have to support NEW_KEY (AP case) and then using NEW_KEY to > detect whether or not a wpa_s configuration option to not use offloaded > 4-way-HS can be used will not work correctly. > > I don't really see that this is a sensible configuration, but I could > imagine it existing if somebody "bolted on" AP functionality for a > client-side chipset or something like that. Hi Johannes, So I want to get back to this as to assure we have the same understanding. First off, the proposed offloads are STA-only. So if a driver supports STA and AP mode and the 4-way-HS offload, we could already have the case you describe here. So not really a "bolted on" scenario I would say. It does raise the question whether or not we want similar offloads for AP. Regards, Arend