Return-path: Received: from mail-qk0-f193.google.com ([209.85.220.193]:35105 "EHLO mail-qk0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754421AbeBGTfH (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2018 14:35:07 -0500 Received: by mail-qk0-f193.google.com with SMTP id c4so324818qkm.2 for ; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 11:35:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ieee80211: Increase the PMK maximum length to 64 bytes To: Srinivas Dasari , johannes@sipsolutions.net References: <1518020451-8743-1-git-send-email-dasaris@codeaurora.org> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, jouni@codeaurora.org From: Arend van Spriel Message-ID: <5A7B54E9.8070805@broadcom.com> (sfid-20180207_203517_509069_A58F62A1) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 20:35:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1518020451-8743-1-git-send-email-dasaris@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2/7/2018 5:20 PM, Srinivas Dasari wrote: > This is needed to cover the case of DPP with the NIST P-521 and > brainpoolP512r1 curves which derive a PMK that is longer than the > previously used limit. So how are driver supposed to deal with this longer PMK. Maybe if you could elaborate on what DPP stands for in this context it would become more clear. Can we stick with PMK_MAX_LEN or does it need to be more fine-grained per use-case? If existing drivers only support 48 bytes PMK and trust nl80211 code to check that limit it may screw them up. Not? If this is preparation for subsequent patches I would put it all in one patch series. Regards, Arend > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Dasari > --- > include/linux/ieee80211.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)