On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 14:55 +0530, Manikanta Pubbisetty wrote:
>
> +++ b/net/mac80211/util.c
> @@ -3795,7 +3795,9 @@ int ieee80211_check_combinations(struct
> ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
> }
>
> /* Always allow software iftypes */
> - if (local->hw.wiphy->software_iftypes & BIT(iftype)) {
> + if (local->hw.wiphy->software_iftypes & BIT(iftype) ||
> + (iftype == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP_VLAN &&
> + local->hw.wiphy->flags & WIPHY_FLAG_4ADDR_AP)) {
> if (radar_detect)
> return -EINVAL;
Shouldn't this check if 4addr is actually enabled too, like here:
> case NETDEV_PRE_UP:
> - if (!(wdev->wiphy->interface_modes & BIT(wdev->iftype)))
> + if (!(wdev->wiphy->interface_modes & BIT(wdev->iftype)) &&
> + !(wdev->iftype == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP_VLAN &&
> + rdev->wiphy.flags & WIPHY_FLAG_4ADDR_AP &&
> + wdev->use_4addr))
> return notifier_from_errno(-EOPNOTSUPP);
?
Or is there some reason it doesn't matter?
> @@ -3439,6 +3438,11 @@ static int nl80211_new_interface(struct sk_buff *skb,
> struct genl_info *info)
> return err;
> }
>
> + if (!(rdev->wiphy.interface_modes & (1 << type)) &&
> + !(type == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP_VLAN && params.use_4addr &&
> + rdev->wiphy.flags & WIPHY_FLAG_4ADDR_AP))
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
I also wonder if we shouldn't go "all in" and actually make the check
something like
check_interface_allowed(iftype, 4addr):
if (iftype == AP_VLAN && 4addr)
return wiphy.flags & WIPHY_FLAG_4ADDR_AP;
else return wiphy.interface_modes & BIT(iftype);
i.e. make it "you must have WIPHY_FLAG_4ADDR_AP to use 4-addr AP_VLAN
interfaces", rather than "also allow it in this case".
That would seem like the clearer semantics to me?
johannes
