From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F48C432C0 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:15:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31196206D4 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:15:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726765AbfKRMPi (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 07:15:38 -0500 Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.62]:33360 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726563AbfKRMPi (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 07:15:38 -0500 Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1iWfwM-00034g-SE; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:15:35 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mac80211: Drop the packets whose source or destination mac address is empty From: Johannes Berg To: Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= , Ming Chen Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Ming Chen Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:15:33 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87blt9ctd4.fsf@toke.dk> References: <20191116060833.45752-1-ming.chen@watchguard.com> <87blt9ctd4.fsf@toke.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 (3.30.5-1.fc29) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2019-11-18 at 12:32 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > Dropping this kind of error packet before it goes into the driver, > > should be the right direction. > > So I still wonder why this happens from higher up in the stack. If > there's a legitimate reason, maybe dropping the packet is not the right > thing? And if there is *no* legitimate reason, maybe the packet should > be dropped higher up in the stack instead? Agree, this is really weird, it'd be good to know the actual packet this happens with. Don't think I've ever seen this. johannes