From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.63.242]:41950 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751392AbdLSQ6u (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:58:50 -0500 Message-ID: <1513702727.26145.17.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20171219_175944_632612_B6948A05) Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] qtnfmac: support MAC address based access control From: Johannes Berg To: Arend van Spriel , Kalle Valo , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Igor Mitsyanko , Avinash Patil Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:58:47 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5A390813.40400@broadcom.com> (sfid-20171219_133742_396000_3393D974) References: <20171113102815.11254-11-sergey.matyukevich.os@quantenna.com> <871skalepz.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> <20171205160010.cytra3bqbttwz5db@bars> <878te0kud2.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <20171218161811.3f3sjhlxdfmsnljx@bars> <1513676321.26145.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20171219102932.xv7bxasvlvguy7jb@bars> <1513679705.26145.13.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20171219104233.wcyemlr3gp4rq5ae@bars> <1513681186.26145.14.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20171219111919.7uoupifxeizqs3x3@bars> <5A390813.40400@broadcom.com> (sfid-20171219_133742_396000_3393D974) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 13:37 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 12/19/2017 12:19 PM, Sergey Matyukevich wrote: > > > > Not yet. At the moment enum nl80211_ap_sme_features in uapi/linux/nl80211.h > > > > is commented out. For MAC-based ACL the following things are being checked > > > > on wiphy registration: complete flag WIPHY_FLAG_HAVE_AP_SME, non-zero > > > > max_acl_mac_addrs, and set_mac_acl cfg80211 callback. > > > > > > I guess that's enough then? Userspace can check max_acl_mac_addrs as > > > well, so it can just use that? > > > > Correct, that is what hostapd is doing. I was simply surprised by the fact > > that MAC-based ACL support implies full-fledged AP SME support. Though > > your almost convinced me that this is ok and other wireless cards simply > > do not exist. > > So the question seems to be here: what shall drivers/firmware implement > to allow flag WIPHY_FLAG_HAVE_AP_SME being set. The kerneldoc is a bit > short in providing guidance: > > * @WIPHY_FLAG_HAVE_AP_SME: device integrates AP SME They should implement the AP SME? :) That is, handling auth/assoc/etc. With the SAE-"offload"-to-host those lines are blurring again though. johannes