[PATCH v2 2/4] HS20: Add support for configuring frame filters

Peer, Ilan ilan.peer at intel.com
Tue Mar 22 05:58:41 PDT 2016

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jouni Malinen [mailto:j at w1.fi]
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 20:36
> To: Peer, Ilan
> Cc: hostap at lists.infradead.org; Gottlieb, Matti
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] HS20: Add support for configuring frame filters
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 08:21:45AM +0000, Peer, Ilan wrote:
> > That's coming from the HS20 rel. 2 specification, section 6.5 that
> > states "Once the mobile device has associated to an HS2.0 network and
> > obtained an IP address, the mobile device ..."
> Yes, I know where it comes from, but I cannot figure out why there would be
> such a constraint there..
> > The motivation was to adhere to the "IP assignment" requirement. I do
> > not think that this would be a real issue as the port is not yet
> > authorized, so lower driver should not pass any IP packets anyway.
> If we need to adhere to that requirement, wpa_supplicant would need to
> register for IP address change events and do this based on those. If we want
> to do this, we can, but I'm not sure we want.. I would either select to do this
> when starting the connection (which makes sense to me) or do this in a
> manner that is compliant with the specification (which someone would need
> to explain to me). I don't see much point in doing something in the middle that
> is neither compliant nor technically justifiable (i.e., it looks like it was just
> convenient to do this after 4-way handshake is completed for the first time in
> the association).

Maybe it was stated so as there was some assumption that unicast IP packets cannot/won't
be received before an IP address has been assigned. If this is the case it makes sense to ignore
this and start the filtering when starting the connection.

> > I'll move the clearing of the flags as you suggested, and also clear
> > these settings on interface de-init. Do you still want the setting of
> > the flags to be earlier although it does not adhere to the "IP assignment"
> requirement?
> I'd want to decide this based on someone figuring out why the spec says what
> it says today.. I'll ask the task group if someone were to remember the reason
> for that or if there is any views on how this should really be done in devices.

Will wait with the changes until this is clarified.



More information about the Hostap mailing list