linux-kernel - RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] wifi: mwifiex: add host mlme for client mode

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 00:50:59 +0000
From: David Lin <yu-hao.lin@....com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
CC: "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kvalo@...nel.org" <kvalo@...nel.org>, "francesco@...cini.it"
	<francesco@...cini.it>, Pete Hsieh <tsung-hsien.hsieh@....com>, Francesco
 Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] wifi: mwifiex: add host mlme for client
 mode

Hi Brian,

> From: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2024 6:55 AM
> To: David Lin <yu-hao.lin@....com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> kvalo@...nel.org; francesco@...cini.it; Pete Hsieh
> <tsung-hsien.hsieh@....com>; Francesco Dolcini
> <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] wifi: mwifiex: add host mlme for client
> mode
> 
> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or
> opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report
> this email' button
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 3:01 PM David Lin <yu-hao.lin@....com> wrote:
> > I think it needs time to support probe client. Can we put your
> > suggested comments to the code used to hook probe_client() and add
> >
> > "TODO: support probe client" to mwifiex_cfg80211_probe_client().
> 
> Are you suggesting that you plan to actually implement proper probe_client
> support? Did you already do what I suggested, and understand why hostapd
> needs probe_client support? This seems to be a common pattern -- that
> reviewers are asking for you to do your research, and it takes several
> requests before you actually do it.
> 
> Now that I've tried to do that research for you ... it looks like hostapd uses
> probe_client to augment TX MGMT acks, as a proxy for station presence /
> inactivity. If a station is inactive and non-responsive, we disconnect it
> eventually. So that looks to me like probe_client support should actually be
> optional, if your driver reports TX status? And in that case, I'd still
> recommend you try to fix hostapd.
> 
> But if you're really planning to implement proper probe_client support, then
> I suppose the TODO approach is also OK.
> 
> I'd also request that you please actually do your research when reviewers
> ask questions. I'm frankly not sure why I'm spending my time on the above
> research, when the onus should be on the submitter to explain why they're
> doing what they're doing.
> 
> Brian

Yes. I know when aging time of station is out, hostapd will use probe_client to check if station is still there before really disconnect it.

Without this feature, it won't really affect mayor function of hostapd.

That is the reason that I suggest that we put comments and TODO to the code.

David