Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:58:10 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Bernhard Schmidt <bschmidt@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] net80211: reject STA frames not destined to the current STA VAP MAC address Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmonu76WiDUq55=utKq79uLtenXzByo6steK0nHpDOpETqA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201110271502.12654.bschmidt@freebsd.org> References: <CAJ-Vmo=CZ-c0QN_qoXQa4gyo5MyxL=DUzy6nXkX27HEDr17iqA@mail.gmail.com> <201110262123.55543.bschmidt@freebsd.org> <CAJ-Vmo=jYt4zddQyKw85Gxi-TFB8ETjQYFjQTTEjuWvdXmC97Q@mail.gmail.com> <201110271502.12654.bschmidt@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27 October 2011 21:02, Bernhard Schmidt <bschmidt@freebsd.org> wrote: > Allright, the important part here seems to be that the seqnos have to > be in a certain order to even remotely trigger an issue. Otherwise > the frames are just discarded as either out of order or because of > replay detection. I'd still add its own counter though, how about > that? Right. So the way I saw this triggered was: * 11n AMPDU-RX - non-aggregate frames wouldn't trigger this bug; * one station TX'ing AMPDU frames via iperf tcp; * another station (mostly) listening That way the chance of the frame having a higher seqno enough to trigger the condition would be higher. Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmonu76WiDUq55=utKq79uLtenXzByo6steK0nHpDOpETqA>