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;
Sender: wgong=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Fri, 13 Aug 2021 18:29:31 +0800
From:   Wen Gong <wgong@codeaurora.org>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc:     ath11k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] mac80211: save transmit power envelope element and
 power constraint
In-Reply-To: <569d85aec8fecc836b5a6f9d40b53dff6e41c1b1.camel@sipsolutions.net>
References: <20210517201932.8860-1-wgong@codeaurora.org>
 <20210517201932.8860-10-wgong@codeaurora.org>
 (sfid-20210517_222034_029448_A9A89D57)
 <d9491db4ece67ac78eb39a1078b91a106770fbb0.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <1126f8d996e895ae048092b3f8aad19b@codeaurora.org>
 <38e7d9d2eebafa7245a36a0a0396094526eb3efd.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <1273cc1a399a7457c3d908648a7651c8fe9b93f3.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <a056e32d4911400fb0822bf02167e91c@codeaurora.org>
 <f61cdc7bae2dd2a645e164ca143b9db402472559.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <465b6b8535fc17ae51ee2f3116af87bb@codeaurora.org>
 <569d85aec8fecc836b5a6f9d40b53dff6e41c1b1.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Message-ID: <24bcb0c5da824f830f31328781c634b9@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-08-13 18:11, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-08-13 at 17:16 +0800, Wen Gong wrote:
>> 
>> yes, it should have some flag/logic to check whether it is BIGTK.
>> If you know it, you can tell me. :)
> 
> Uh, actually, we don't have a secure indication of BIGTK getting used
> until after the 4-way-HS.
> 
>> >
>> Yes, the lower driver also have the max power limit itself. If power
>> calulated
>> from the fake beacon is bigger than the max power limit, then it will 
>> be
>> ignored.
> 
> Right.
> 
>> >
>> The Transmit Power Envelope is not existed in the assoc response, it 
>> is
>> existed
>> in beacon. So it can not use assoc response.
> 
> Right.
> 
> 
> Given this discussion, I think we should just leave it as is, and 
> simply
> not assume that the TPE is protected by beacon protection or such. 
> There
> are a number of other similar parameters, and doing some real 
> protection
> at this level would likely require further spec changes.
> 
Thanks.
I will leave it as is without change for BIGTK.
I will change others patch and send new version.
> johannes