Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [BUG?] b43: can't connect to WPA3 network (nohwcrypt=1)
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_B=c3=bcsch?= <m@bues.ch>
Cc:     Rui Salvaterra <rsalvaterra@gmail.com>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, b43-dev@lists.infradead.org
References: <CALjTZvbLOr5zAYyp75Cs6Zo8mWNUVq3ZRJu56G1iHdiihFejWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <263e247c-3bf9-6d42-996b-bc513efe4b71@lwfinger.net>
 <CALjTZvauK0Hh+aoabcDX9kkQZ4zN2ZjPnB+aq7YrJ9+-4ihiAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <87fffd5d-242a-7195-c4cc-80260dbd53c5@lwfinger.net>
 <CALjTZvYCFNSQ6HMN4owkiGTVrYaiU8R-P1KXgvkwGqcOo8uMuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALjTZvYMF_ERBfzkhaHvsTu6kt7MW+L_979sOVs8hcH7zF_Nyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200521124608.4b5c78f2@wiggum>
 <CALjTZvan46UTwcUxOSN=RiE6XHm-29Ln8B6wiv40V_RVxWewtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200521134011.656381ad@wiggum>
 <CALjTZvZcfT-aURMa=j-1ksWyVdu42bLEsGOaq+Hw39ioiPFKAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALjTZvY3_wjAx9DOEgYxpc4_fG-HWh_=O7veFxeEoygPzTJptw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2b22b778-2f89-9c42-93a0-5c165de26f35@lwfinger.net>
 <CALjTZva70Ni-s5VjRZL5BPswEtz5VZsX+dvE6rq2ztLJQ9v3kA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALjTZvbvE_cDg9mfszscSBowznp1UpxqiN1LQfbgeCOYatKMNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <f6152cd7-1043-dde2-7fc1-634d8b07a231@lwfinger.net>
 <20200522121910.254aefc1@wiggum> <87a720gpfb.fsf@tynnyri.adurom.net>
From:   Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>
Message-ID: <842ae4a0-5aa5-a464-3218-8955a3ee445a@lwfinger.net>
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 12:15:00 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87a720gpfb.fsf@tynnyri.adurom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 5/22/20 6:49 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> 
> And did the "bad" performance even have any real visible changes to the
> user? IMHO this "bad" performance is small price to pay from getting
> WPA3 supported out-of-box, especially when the data throughput is
> unaffected.

Kalle,

The only bad effect is to consume 2-3 times more CPU than used if the firmware 
handles encryption. On a modern system, the effect is negligible; however, these 
cards are found only on older systems that have uni-processors.

I have reread the mac80211 documentation (comments in code at least), and it 
appears that it should be possible to set MFP_CAPABLE unconditionally, and use 
the set_key() callback to let mac80211 know if the driver/firmware will handle 
encryption. The module parameter could be removed; however, I favor leaving it 
in case of broken hardware.

@Rui: I will send you a new patch for testing.

Larry