Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1c90ea159042d923504aaaeaf45536c6579a17e8.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: SOCK_WIFI_STATUS for control port over nl80211?
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Markus Theil <markus.theil@tu-ilmenau.de>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Mon, 03 Feb 2020 15:31:46 +0100
In-Reply-To: <43d429f0-5948-46d0-ef98-378dfb4ca0f0@tu-ilmenau.de> (sfid-20200203_145103_570513_D1BCA7B4)
References: <43d429f0-5948-46d0-ef98-378dfb4ca0f0@tu-ilmenau.de>
         (sfid-20200203_145103_570513_D1BCA7B4)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 (3.34.2-1.fc31) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 14:50 +0100, Markus Theil wrote:
> In the last few weeks I used a wpa_supplicant with my patches for tx and
> rx over nl80211 control port and sometimes observed longer time to
> successful connection than without these patches. I think that this is a
> result of wpa_supplicant using SOCK_WIFI_STATUS when transmitting EAPOL
> frames over AF_PACKET sockets and using a fast retransmit, if the Wi-Fi
> ack is not observed timely. So the question here is, should we add an
> analog feature for tx over nl80211 control port? I think of a
> control_port_tx_status message with a cookie delivered to user-space.

Somehow I thought we treated this like the mgmt tx and already had a
notification over nl80211 going back, but looks like not?

Then yeah, we should definitely add that.

johannes