Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:45:07 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: net80211 - how the heck is M_FRAG (mbuf/net80211 fragments) supposed to work? Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmon%2BiMKu=Y097jQeyVqzie_usAe_12nahFtW4wAi6QDegQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=4vzSy5V8i0%2BVMXP8kT4XuoJkXYvwurnonmJjXRnNr=Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-Vmo=4vzSy5V8i0%2BVMXP8kT4XuoJkXYvwurnonmJjXRnNr=Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17 February 2012 00:53, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > Hi, > > So ray@ pointed out that fragment handling in net80211 is broken. Yes, > 802.11 fragments, not IP fragments. This is specific to ath, but any > driver using IFQ_ENQUEUE/IFQ_DEQUEUE is likely broken. After doing some digging, I stumbled across: r190579 | sam | 2009-03-30 14:53:27 -0700 (Mon, 30 Mar 2009) | 25 lines Hoist 802.11 encapsulation up into net80211: o call ieee80211_encap in ieee80211_start so frames passed down to drivers are already encapsulated o remove ieee80211_encap calls in drivers ... So I wonder if fragment encapsulation was broken at this point? The ath driver would've been able to decapsulate that list of fragment frames and feed them one at a time to the fragment/TX side. Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmon%2BiMKu=Y097jQeyVqzie_usAe_12nahFtW4wAi6QDegQ>