MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1513702727.26145.17.camel@sipsolutions.net>
References: <20171113102815.11254-11-sergey.matyukevich.os@quantenna.com>
 <871skalepz.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> <20171205160010.cytra3bqbttwz5db@bars>
 <878te0kud2.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <20171218161811.3f3sjhlxdfmsnljx@bars>
 <1513676321.26145.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20171219102932.xv7bxasvlvguy7jb@bars>
 <1513679705.26145.13.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20171219104233.wcyemlr3gp4rq5ae@bars>
 <1513681186.26145.14.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20171219111919.7uoupifxeizqs3x3@bars>
 <5A390813.40400@broadcom.com> <1513702727.26145.17.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 23:13:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAF7Mx6o8r_XpCY6-V-EycTDW+FwBTxe2iTKrLpmx=WQBiNmbbw@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20171219_231346_974555_AB790D0D)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] qtnfmac: support MAC address based access control
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Igor Mitsyanko <igor.mitsyanko.os@quantenna.com>,
        Avinash Patil <avinashp@quantenna.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 13:37 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> On 12/19/2017 12:19 PM, Sergey Matyukevich wrote:
>> > > > Not yet. At the moment enum nl80211_ap_sme_features in uapi/linux/nl80211.h
>> > > > is commented out. For MAC-based ACL the following things are being checked
>> > > > on wiphy registration: complete flag WIPHY_FLAG_HAVE_AP_SME, non-zero
>> > > > max_acl_mac_addrs, and set_mac_acl cfg80211 callback.
>> > >
>> > > I guess that's enough then? Userspace can check max_acl_mac_addrs as
>> > > well, so it can just use that?
>> >
>> > Correct, that is what hostapd is doing. I was simply surprised by the fact
>> > that MAC-based ACL support implies full-fledged AP SME support. Though
>> > your almost convinced me that this is ok and other wireless cards simply
>> > do not exist.
>>
>> So the question seems to be here: what shall drivers/firmware implement
>> to allow flag WIPHY_FLAG_HAVE_AP_SME being set. The kerneldoc is a bit
>> short in providing guidance:
>>
>>   * @WIPHY_FLAG_HAVE_AP_SME: device integrates AP SME
>
> They should implement the AP SME? :)
>
> That is, handling auth/assoc/etc.

So basically everything to setup 802.11 connection. So what about the
.*_station() callbacks? Anyway, I can understand that people start
looking at the checks done in wiphy_register() as a last resort in
finding (some sort of) documentation.

> With the SAE-"offload"-to-host those lines are blurring again though.

Yeah. Thanks for (inadvertently) reminding me to chime in on that.

Regards,
Arend