Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <857cd0ff-ee5b-65d1-2888-5d6be93976c0@quicinc.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:31:36 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.6.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cfg80211: validate RU puncturing bitmap
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Aloka Dixit <quic_alokad@quicinc.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220214223051.3610-1-quic_alokad@quicinc.com>
 <20220214223051.3610-3-quic_alokad@quicinc.com>
 <a9813545a25cd63f71cc31476230514a80350802.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <6cf56be5-16d6-2bcd-150f-bf29f98b7f1b@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <6cf56be5-16d6-2bcd-150f-bf29f98b7f1b@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/15/2022 4:37 PM, Aloka Dixit wrote:
> On 2/15/2022 12:19 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Mon, 2022-02-14 at 14:30 -0800, Aloka Dixit wrote:
>>>
>>> +
>>> +bool cfg80211_ru_punct_bitmap_valid(const struct cfg80211_chan_def 
>>> *chandef)
>>
>> Conceptually, I'm wondering if it really belongs into the chandef? Can
>> you explain why it's part of the channel configuration? If you've got
>> two chandefs with the same control channel, CCFS and bandwidth, but
>> different puncturing, does it really make sense to treat them as two
>> separate channel contexts, e.g. in mac80211? It seems strange to do
>> that.
>>
>> johannes
> 
> Added it here so that any command working with chandef will be updated 
> without any other change.
> Example: During channel switch, user can provide a puncturing bitmap 
> with a new option I added in userspace, and because it is part of 
> chandef, the same code path validates it for that command automatically.
> 
> Regarding if different puncturing pattern should be considered as a new 
> context - yes, depending on if it is HE or non-HE mode, the new bitmap 
> may be invalid and the operation should fail.
> 
> Thanks,
> Aloka


Hi Johannes,
Any comments on the above. Thanks.