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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E95ECAAD4 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 07:17:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229636AbiH2HRo (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2022 03:17:44 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36954 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229453AbiH2HRm (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2022 03:17:42 -0400 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:4433::2]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E5974DB37; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 00:17:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=y1AGFp8fhSJfnytRvA3S7bMV03PvXazGKz5zOHFVZqU=; t=1661757460; x=1662967060; b=g1jgCuJ0T4oT4h3TWL5XKHdMPPZLSSopI0UL+f6EeOHBpfp LlW2WSk9DqK5yn6Xbt8X3WJpU0y83e3DGCWf3I2OjuQDiOuIbPQnTtuIMD/upolmZVgaXNvmgnNqw vAO/bvYCOQTxhiQpyDMI3jOTXQEl+QPO9m4j5g9XKJPJcGYvOtJoeYA482xjkZ/JmwbX14AffQffh ivMNoYcDB8ZcoYNaICIGjAuuj8S8HNyRTXDMNgvPuDMisJTygTyT+b+k4cBoAKHU6DLb+kAljtYaQ oItGZLWm569UIsPdoQUUldUJY6uwSBM4NFHQzS1m7KVR9TrpO8nBGzPQ6Gkk4omA==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1oSZ1d-002fmY-32; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:17:38 +0200 Message-ID: <2bec21b921168ea67a1746f882f30d4a6cabb627.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: ieee80211: Fix for fragmented action frames From: Johannes Berg To: Gilad Itzkovitch Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:17:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20220810224804.2137240-1-gilad.itzkovitch@morsemicro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4 (3.44.4-1.fc36) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 15:43 +1200, Gilad Itzkovitch wrote: >=20 > > This doesn't make much sense to me - why would it be allowed or > > necessary to call this function on a frame that wasn't yet defragmented= ? >=20 > That was partially our understanding. But, the fragmented action frame is > being dropped by this function >=20 Well, this function doesn't drop anything :) It just answers a question "is this a robust management frame", but if the question is nonsense (calling it on a fragment other than the first) then the answer will also be nonsense, right? > as it is part of the provisioning DPP process > (fragmented due to S1G low rates). Right. > Trying to avoid a big change here for this specific action category. It's not really related to any specific category, is it? > As defragmentation will occur later on in the process there should be a > safe way to avoid dropping the frame beforehand. Sure! But this isn't really a good way, nor would I argue it is safe ... Perhaps ieee80211_rx_h_decrypt() needs to be more careful? I'm not even sure where the frame really is being dropped. Anyway, I really don't think this patch makes any sense, I think you need to back up a bit and look at the higher layer(s) to see where and why it's being dropped, and skip that if it's fragmented? johannes