> + /* 802.11ai */
> + WLAN_STATUS_FILS_AUTHENTICATION_FAILURE = 108,
> + WLAN_STATUS_UNKNOWN_AUTHENTICATION_SERVER = 109,
Not sure I see much value in that comment there, but whatever :)
> * caching.
> *
> * @bssid: The AP's BSSID.
> - * @pmkid: The PMK material itself.
> + * @pmkid: The identifer to refer a PMKSA.
typo - identifier
> + * @pmk: The PMK for the PMKSA identified by @pmkid. This is used
> for key
> + * derivation by a FILS STA. Otherwise, %NULL.
> + * @pmk_len: Length of the @pmk. The length of @pmk can differ
> depending on
> + * the hash algorithm used to generate this.
> + * @ssid: SSID to specify the ESS within which a PMKSA is valid.
> + * @ssid_len: Length of the @ssid in octets.
> + * @cache_id: Unsigned 16 bit identifier advertized by an AP
> identifying the
> + * scope of PMKSA. This is valid only if @ssid_len is non-
> zero.
> */
> struct cfg80211_pmksa {
> const u8 *bssid;
> const u8 *pmkid;
> + const u8 *pmk;
> + size_t pmk_len;
> + const u8 *ssid;
> + size_t ssid_len;
> + u16 cache_id;
> };
So I'm really still a bit confused by this.
For 802.1X, we decided that using the PMKSA cache to convey the PMK
from the host to the device (after doing the handshake) was a bad idea.
Can you explain why this is different for FILS?
Or wait - I'll attempt myself. In this case, it really *is* a cache,
since the firmware will be able to use any of them?
> /**
> + * struct cfg80211_connect_resp_params - Connection response params
I like this, but I think it'd be good to split it out into a separate
patch.
> +struct cfg80211_connect_resp_params {
> + int status;
> + u8 bssid[ETH_ALEN];
Is there a reason for this to be the value rather than a pointer? I'm
not really sure it actually matters, but the fields below are pointers
too (and kinda have to be) so why the difference?
(Ok, so on 64-bit systems this is smaller, but it's actually easier to
assign a pointer than to memcpy())
> /**
> + * DOC: FILS shared key authentication offload
Thanks :)
johannes
