Re: Adding a parameter to net80211_input?

[Sam Leffler <sam%errno.com@localhost>]

Quentin Garnier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 09:39:31AM -0500, David Young wrote:
>   
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 05:52:45AM +0200, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> >     
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've been working on importing support for RALink 2860 devices from
> > > OpenBSD, because that's the WLAN chip the EeeBox has.
> > >
> > > Like wi(4), this chip is able to do encryption and decryption in the
> > > hardware.  Like wi(4), it has the issue that the net80211 layer isn't
> > > too keen on the idea.
> > >       
> > Actually, the net80211 layer *is* keen on the idea.  Maybe it appears
> > otherwise.  Can you say more about that?
> >     
>
> Do you remember the workaround wi(4) has to use not to see F_DROPUNENC
> kill all frames?
>
> You called it grotty in the first place :)
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-net/2007/11/26/0005.html
>
> I guess the problem is that just like for wi, the crypto headers are
> lost.
>
>   
> > How has OpenBSD dealt with WEP?
> >     
>
> They pass a parameter to ieee80211_input.
>
>   
FreeBSD defines an M_WEP flag to tag mbufs that have been decrypted (and 
the WEP header removed) but still have the WEP bit set in the 802.11 
header (IEEE80211_FC1_WEP).

If you're adding support for 2860 h/w crypto then this is the least of 
your worries.  The more difficult issue is how to deal with TKIP 
requiring phase1 be handled by the driver.

   Sam