From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:56908 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S968706AbdD1VCm (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:02:42 -0400 Message-ID: <1493413355.2431.19.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20170428_230403_683687_67ED3C05) Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] cfg80211/nl80211: add authorized flag to roaming event From: Johannes Berg To: Arend van Spriel , Luca Coelho , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Jouni Malinen Cc: Avraham Stern , Luca Coelho Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 23:02:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: <30808bad-1f15-20bd-9bfe-0c10ab8555cd@broadcom.com> (sfid-20170426_120601_633858_AC9F0B99) References: <20170426075854.13546-1-luca@coelho.fi> <20170426075854.13546-6-luca@coelho.fi> <30808bad-1f15-20bd-9bfe-0c10ab8555cd@broadcom.com> (sfid-20170426_120601_633858_AC9F0B99) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 12:05 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > > the mobility domain does not require new 802.1X authentication, but > > roaming to another mobility domain does. > > Not sure about the terminology here. Is "mobility domain" the same > as  "ESS" which stands for extended service set as definced in > 802.11  standard. If so, I would prefer use of that term here. No. "Mobility domain" was defined in 802.11r, it's unrelated to ESS. > > + * @authorized: true if the 802.1X authentication was done by the > > driver or is > > + * not needed (e.g., when Fast Transition protocol was > > used), false > > + * otherwise. Ignored for networks that don't use 802.1X > > authentication. > > It is not ignored in this patch so it is expected user-space > behavior you are describing, which is not really needed here in > cfg80211 driver api. Still kinda makes sense though to give that hint to the driver authors, don't you think? Though it should be pretty clear ... > >    * well to remain backwards compatible. > >    * @NL80211_CMD_ROAM: request that the card roam (currently not > > implemented), > > Do we want to keep this comment about the request scenario. Is it > likely implemented soon/ever? Heh, good question. Probably not, but it's kinda an unrelated cleanup, no? > >    * sent as an event when the card/driver roamed by itself. > > + * When used as an event, and the driver roamed in a > > network that requires > > + * 802.1X authentication, > > %NL80211_ATTR_CONNECTION_AUTHORIZED should be set > > + * if the 802.1X authentication was done by the driver or > > if roaming was > > + * done using Fast Transition protocol (in which case > > 802.1X authentication > > + * is not needed). If %NL80211_ATTR_CONNECTION_AUTHORIZED > > is not set, > > + * user space is responsible for the 802.1X authentication. > > Would you consider using NL80211_ATTR_PORT_AUTHORIZED instead > referring to the 802.1X port entities. I guess that makes sense, yeah. johannes