From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f174.google.com ([209.85.192.174]:35358 "EHLO mail-pf0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751309AbdEVKOa (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2017 06:14:30 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f174.google.com with SMTP id n23so77969740pfb.2 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 03:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/9] nl80211: add support for PTK/GTK handshake offload To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless , "hostap@lists.infradead.org" References: <1493808134-4074-1-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> <1495030794.2442.21.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1de42f39-1912-349b-e20d-4b5c3c44909f@broadcom.com> <1495099355.2553.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> <4e0672aa-51bc-115f-32b7-b1a8eb747e5b@broadcom.com> <1495104012.2553.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1495189263.3274.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> From: Arend van Spriel Message-ID: (sfid-20170522_121437_689356_F431248C) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 12:14:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1495189263.3274.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 5/19/2017 12:21 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 14:48 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > >> True. However, we touched this topic a while ago in generic context, >> ie. preference for ext_features over supported_commands. Right now >> wpa_supplicant does not check NEW_KEY support so we can go either >> way. > > Right. That's a separate discussion though - whether we add two flags > here or check NEW_KEY support doesn't really matter, except that we > need to decide > > * if we want to support such an override at all, and > * if it should be tested at all > (perhaps we can just live with that failing entirely?) > >> I have cleaned up the wpa_supplicant patches for the offloads, but >> waited with submitting them until the kernel side got applied. So >> depending on what is decided here I can rework it. > > I don't really know. I personally don't think that we need to allow > both ways, but then I'm coming with a driver that doesn't even support > the old way. Ok. I know for sure that I have firmware in linux-firmware that supports the offload. So for people using that out there things will change from one way to the other when they change to a newer wpa_supplicant. > So you should probably decide yourself if you want to keep this > fallback option, and how well it should work (be rejected if used on a > driver that doesn't support it, or just fail later?) There is a (small) chance of regression with older devices as stated above and I would like to keep the fallback option for that. Also people may like to have a choice. I am not so sure about whether NEW_KEY support is enough or a new ext_feature flag is needed. I am inclined to say the NEW_KEY support is sufficient. Regards, Arend