On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 14:31 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2018-07-03 at 16:04 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > From: Peter Oh <[email protected]> > > > > NL80211_ATTR_OFFCHANNEL_TX_OK does not mean given channel is always > > off channel, but it means the channel given could be off channel. > > Hence it should not block the given channel to be used if given > > channel does not require off channel mgmt tx although regulatory > > domain is non-ETSI. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Oh <[email protected]> > > --- > > net/wireless/nl80211.c | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/wireless/nl80211.c b/net/wireless/nl80211.c > > index 4eece06..991042b 100644 > > --- a/net/wireless/nl80211.c > > +++ b/net/wireless/nl80211.c > > @@ -9915,7 +9915,9 @@ static int nl80211_tx_mgmt(struct sk_buff *skb, > > struct genl_info *info) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > wdev_lock(wdev); > > - if (params.offchan && !cfg80211_off_channel_oper_allowed(wdev)) { > > + if (params.offchan && > > + !cfg80211_chandef_identical(&chandef, &wdev->chandef) && > > + !cfg80211_off_channel_oper_allowed(wdev)) { > > wdev_unlock(wdev); > > Hmm. That seems fine, but can we be sure that wdev->chandef is always > valid? ISTR that it isn't necessarily updated all the time, but I can't > really say right now.
For the record, in addition to this question, the commit log might need some rewording since the whole regulatory/non-ETSI part isn't really obvious (and not clear to me right now). I've had this patch waiting for about a year now, I'll drop it. Please resend if it's still relevant. johannes
