[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1375825538.10459.1.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 23:45:38 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: sedat.dilek@...il.com
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 6 [ wireless | iwlwifi | mac80211 ? ]
On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 23:40 +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> > Does the problem occur on client or server side? AFAICT, hostapd as well
> > as wpa_supplicant use AF_PACKET.
> >
> > The tricky thing is, these patches are meant to *loosen* the
> > restrictions in af_packet.c, so *should* not be harmful. So either my
> > patches create a side effect I did not foresee, or it's something nasty
> > (too much delay introduced by calling eth_type_trans() or so).
> By reverting the culprit commit my network/wifi is fine, again.
> See also attached patch with changelog.
I think skb->protocol is probably getting set up wrong, and just putting
back the last two lines
skb->protocol = proto;
skb->dev = dev;
is probably sufficient to fix wifi. If skb->protocol isn't set to
ETH_P_PAE, then we'd drop the packet in the wifi stack - might be worth
printing out what it's set to at the point where the skb->protocol
assignment above was removed.
I'm trying to wrap my head around all this right now but I don't yet see
how the code after the patch would not get skb->protocol correct.
johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists