On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
>> + * @REGULATORY_ENFORCE_CHANNELS: the regulatory core will make sure all
>> + * interfaces on this wiphy reside on allowed channels. Upon a regdomain
>> + * change, the interfaces are given a grace period to disconnect or move
>> + * to an allowed channels. Interfaces on forbidden channels are forcibly
>> + * disconnected.
>
> I don't like this name, it would seem folks not using this don't
> get to enforce channels, and that's not right, this is a feature,
> and in fact I am not sure why this is being implemented as optional
> rather than a standard feature. Care to explain the reasoning there?
This is a big change in behavior. It can hurt certification tests etc.
I believe a chip vendor should opt-in for this change. Otherwise we
risk bad user experience.
>
>> diff --git a/net/wireless/reg.c b/net/wireless/reg.c
>> index 7449a8c..6459ddd 100644
>> --- a/net/wireless/reg.c
>> +++ b/net/wireless/reg.c
>> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@
>> #include <net/cfg80211.h>
>> #include "core.h"
>> #include "reg.h"
>> +#include "rdev-ops.h"
>> #include "regdb.h"
>> #include "nl80211.h"
>>
>> @@ -66,6 +67,12 @@
>> #define REG_DBG_PRINT(args...)
>> #endif
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Grace period we give before making sure all current interfaces reside on
>> + * channels allowed by the current regulatory domain.
>> + */
>> +#define REG_ENFORCE_GRACE_MS 60000
>> +
>> /**
>> * enum reg_request_treatment - regulatory request treatment
>> *
>> @@ -210,6 +217,9 @@ struct reg_beacon {
>> struct ieee80211_channel chan;
>> };
>>
>> +static void reg_check_chans_work(struct work_struct *work);
>> +static DECLARE_DELAYED_WORK(reg_check_chans, reg_check_chans_work);
>> +
>> static void reg_todo(struct work_struct *work);
>> static DECLARE_WORK(reg_work, reg_todo);
>>
>> @@ -1518,6 +1528,90 @@ static void reg_call_notifier(struct wiphy *wiphy,
>> wiphy->reg_notifier(wiphy, request);
>> }
>>
>> +static bool reg_wdev_chan_valid(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct wireless_dev
>> *wdev)
>> +{
>> + struct ieee80211_channel *ch;
>> + struct cfg80211_chan_def chandef;
>> + struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev = wiphy_to_rdev(wiphy);
>> + bool ret = true;
>> +
>> + wdev_lock(wdev);
>> +
>> + if (!wdev->netdev || !netif_running(wdev->netdev))
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + switch (wdev->iftype) {
>> + case NL80211_IFTYPE_AP:
>> + case NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_GO:
>> + if (!wdev->beacon_interval)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + ret = cfg80211_reg_can_beacon(wiphy,
>> + &wdev->chandef, wdev->iftype);
>> + break;
>> + case NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION:
>> + case NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_CLIENT:
>> + if (!wdev->current_bss ||
>> + !wdev->current_bss->pub.channel)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + ch = wdev->current_bss->pub.channel;
>> + if (rdev->ops->get_channel &&
>> + !rdev_get_channel(rdev, wdev, &chandef))
>> + ret = cfg80211_chandef_usable(wiphy, &chandef,
>> + IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED);
>> + else
>> + ret = !(ch->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED);
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + /* others not implemented for now */
>> + pr_info("Regulatory channel check not implemented for mode
>> %d\n",
>> + wdev->iftype);
>
> I feel you are being lazy here, come on, think of it and address it.
> It can't be that hard. In fact cfg80211_leave() already deals with
> all the logic to leave properly for all types of interfaces, you
> just have to come up with the logic to know things should kick
> the device off. Its not that hard.
I don't want to add modes I cannot test with HW I have. I think that's
irresponsible, especially when the side-effects are disconnections.
I can add IBSS as well with the HW I have, but that's about it.
Arik
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
