Return-path: Received: from mail-qk0-f171.google.com ([209.85.220.171]:35697 "EHLO mail-qk0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751496AbdLSWNY (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:13:24 -0500 Received: by mail-qk0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 143so9754579qki.2 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:13:24 -0800 (PST) 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 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 23:13:23 +0100 Message-ID: (sfid-20171219_231346_974555_AB790D0D) Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] qtnfmac: support MAC address based access control To: Johannes Berg Cc: Kalle Valo , linux-wireless , Igor Mitsyanko , Avinash Patil Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Johannes Berg 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