On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 10:47 -0800, Javier Cardona wrote:

quoted

quoted

+ * @is_secure: or not

Given what we just discussed over in the other thread, should we rename
this to "userspace_station_mgmt" or something like that?

Are you suggesting to change the name of the flag both in nl80211 and cfg80211?

Yeah, I was.

Currently ENABLE_SECURITY means "let userspace manage stations", but
also "ok to accept mesh management frames from secure mesh peers".
And when the Authenticated Mesh Peering Exchange is implemented, it
will probably mean "verify mesh peering frames in userspace" and
"protect mesh peering frames".  You either do all these tasks or none,
so for nl80211 I would prefer a single flag.

Indeed. I forgot about the RSN checking part etc. I suppose we should
just leave it as is then.

quoted

Also, does it make sense to advertise support for this somehow?
Otherwise the new tools will have strange failure cases on older
kernels;

Ah, I see.  Older kernels would not return an error to userspace if an
attempt to set a non existing flag was made, right?

Right.

Are you suggesting to define something like an
NL80211_MESHCONF_CAPABILITIES mask?

I haven't thought about how I'd do it really -- yes something like that
might make sense.

quoted

and I can also imagine situations where the mesh APIs are in
firmware or so that can't cope with userspace station mgmt.

Ah mesh in firmware... who would want to do that? :)

:-)

johannes