Re: [PATCH 10/10] qtnfmac: support MAC address based access control

[Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> 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.

So basically everything to setup 802.11 connection. So what about the
.*_station() callbacks? Anyway, I can understand that people start
looking at the checks done in wiphy_register() as a last resort in
finding (some sort of) documentation.

> With the SAE-"offload"-to-host those lines are blurring again though.

Yeah. Thanks for (inadvertently) reminding me to chime in on that.

Regards,
Arend