On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 10:02 +0100, Nicolas Cavallari wrote: > On 16/02/2018 17:12, Luca Coelho wrote: > > - sta = sta_info_alloc(sdata, addr, GFP_ATOMIC); > > - if (!sta) > > - return; > > > > - /* make sure mandatory rates are always added */ > > - sband = local->hw.wiphy->bands[band]; > > - sta->sta.supp_rates[band] = supp_rates | > > - ieee80211_mandatory_rates(sband, > > scan_width); > > - > > - spin_lock(&ifibss->incomplete_lock); > > - list_add(&sta->list, &ifibss->incomplete_stations); > > - spin_unlock(&ifibss->incomplete_lock); > > - ieee80211_queue_work(&local->hw, &sdata->work); > > + ieee80211_send_probe_req(sdata, sdata->vif.addr, addr, > > + sdata->u.ibss.ssid, sdata- > > >u.ibss.ssid_len, > > + NULL, 0, (u32)-1, true, 0, > > + chanctx_conf->def.chan, false); > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > } > > Won't that spam the channel with probe request if the traffic from > the > other station is heavy ? > > And, if the other station is running the same code and didn't know > about us (e.g. at join time), won't it also spam the channel with > probe requests after receiving our many probe requests ? (as well as > the probe responses from both stations) > > Obviously it should stop after receiving a probe response... But what > if the link is badly asymmetric ?
Sari, can you please look into this? -- Cheers, Luca.
