From owner-freebsd-wireless@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 4 12:29:58 2011 Return-Path: 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 63402106566B; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:29:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bschmidt@techwires.net) Received: from mail-bw0-f54.google.com (mail-bw0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D608FC12; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:29:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkbzs8 with SMTP id zs8so719567bkb.13 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 05:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.153.208 with SMTP id l16mr691752bkw.6.1317731396477; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 05:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amy.lab.techwires.net (p54B4AF8F.dip.t-dialin.net. [84.180.175.143]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z9sm16426904bkn.7.2011.10.04.05.29.54 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 04 Oct 2011 05:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Bernhard Schmidt From: Bernhard Schmidt To: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:31:39 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (FreeBSD/9.0-BETA3; KDE/4.6.5; amd64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201110041431.39599.bschmidt@freebsd.org> Cc: PseudoCylon Subject: Re: Panic in AHDEMO mode (was: net-mgmt/aircrack-ng on FreeBSD 7+ / call for testing) 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:29:58 -0000 On Tuesday 04 October 2011 09:33:38 Adrian Chadd wrote: > Well that just means the BSS isn't correctly setup. Shouldn't we just > fail any frames at that point? (and thus the dup'ing of a fake node > won't occur) ? > Or perhaps find out why the bss isn'et setup right and fix that? Do we know in which state the VAP was? Afaik I've added a check to discard frames while in SCAN state, might as well extend that to !RUN. -- Bernhard