From owner-freebsd-wireless@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Oct 27 19:58:11 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-wireless@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6A05106566B;
	Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:58:11 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com
	[209.85.212.54])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646AF8FC18;
	Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:58:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by vws11 with SMTP id 11so4360765vws.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
	:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=rJTm/OQXijgyN/JinzpABmgoLJINoxkcBRT6KjGKJYs=;
	b=BECtSwLFYGwixqccJPZ7w8XGYi+otbEX1+OsARqDvOwTMRXmirvOS6RasEUPEHE4DN
	iM0l+yiejZ/3L+luPjGwDowaADwebs70KkvWoMND6RikMqnm9kug0gtGrmejChDsNF5S
	QMJP19m2mQq5RWQv+2WM2gs8Xc+BDMD99J41s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.240.131 with SMTP id wa3mr1191921vdc.95.1319745490622; Thu,
	27 Oct 2011 12:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.176.1 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
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>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:58:10 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: eWCwZtabstzxQneE8Xb2f4nEDtY
Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmonu76WiDUq55=utKq79uLtenXzByo6steK0nHpDOpETqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
To: Bernhard Schmidt <bschmidt@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [patch] net80211: reject STA frames not destined to the current
 STA VAP MAC address
X-BeenThere: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions of 802.11 stack,
	tools device driver development." <freebsd-wireless.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-wireless-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-wireless>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-wireless-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-wireless-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:58:11 -0000

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