Hi Alexander,

aahringo@redhat.com wrote on Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:43:20 -0400:

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 6:21 AM Miquel Raynal [off-list ref] wrote:
...

quoted

Actually right now the second level is not enforced, and all the
filtering levels are a bit fuzzy and spread everywhere in rx.c.

I'm gonna see if I can at least clarify all of that and only make
coord-dependent the right section because right now a
ieee802154_coord_rx() path in ieee802154_rx_handle_packet() does not
really make sense given that the level 3 filtering rules are mostly
enforced in ieee802154_subif_frame().  

One thing I mentioned before is that we probably like to have a
parameter for rx path to give mac802154 a hint on which filtering
level it was received. We don't have that, I currently see that this
is a parameter for hwsim receiving it on promiscuous level only and
all others do third level filtering.
We need that now, because the promiscuous mode was only used for
sniffing which goes directly into the rx path for monitors. With scan
we mix things up here and in my opinion require such a parameter and
do filtering if necessary.

I am currently trying to implement a slightly different approach. The
core does not know hwsim is always in promiscuous mode, but it does
know that it does not check FCS. So the core checks it. This is
level 1 achieved. Then in level 2 we want to know if the core asked
the transceiver to enter promiscuous mode, which, if it did, should
not imply more filtering. If the device is working in promiscuous
mode but this was not asked explicitly by the core, we don't really
care, software filtering will apply anyway.

I am reworking the rx path to clarify what is being done and when,
because I found this part very obscure right now. In the end I don't
think we need additional rx info from the drivers. Hopefully my
proposal will clarify why this is (IMHO) not needed.

Thanks,
Miquèl