| 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536 |
- From: Jouni Malinen <jouni@qca.qualcomm.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 01:04:31 +0200
- Subject: [PATCH] Fix duplicate Reassociation Request frame dropping
- Relational operators (==) have higher precedence than the ternary
- conditional in C. The last_subtype check for association/reassociation
- was broken due to incorrect assumption about the precedence. Fix this by
- adding parenthesis around the ternary conditional.
- The previous implementation worked for Association Request frames by
- accident since WLAN_FC_STYPE_ASSOC_REQ happens to have value 0 and when
- the last receive frame was an Association Request frame, the
- sta->last_subtype == reassoc check was true and non-zero
- WLAN_FC_STYPE_REASSOC_REQ was interpreted as true. However, this was
- broken for Reassociation Request frame. reassoc == 1 in that case could
- have matched received Association Response frame (subtype == 1), but
- those are not received in AP mode and as such, this did not break other
- behavior apart from not being able to drop duplicated Reassociation
- Request frames.
- Signed-off-by: Jouni Malinen <jouni@qca.qualcomm.com>
- ---
- --- a/src/ap/ieee802_11.c
- +++ b/src/ap/ieee802_11.c
- @@ -2485,8 +2485,8 @@ static void handle_assoc(struct hostapd_
- if ((fc & WLAN_FC_RETRY) &&
- sta->last_seq_ctrl != WLAN_INVALID_MGMT_SEQ &&
- sta->last_seq_ctrl == seq_ctrl &&
- - sta->last_subtype == reassoc ? WLAN_FC_STYPE_REASSOC_REQ :
- - WLAN_FC_STYPE_ASSOC_REQ) {
- + sta->last_subtype == (reassoc ? WLAN_FC_STYPE_REASSOC_REQ :
- + WLAN_FC_STYPE_ASSOC_REQ)) {
- hostapd_logger(hapd, sta->addr, HOSTAPD_MODULE_IEEE80211,
- HOSTAPD_LEVEL_DEBUG,
- "Drop repeated association frame seq_ctrl=0x%x",
|
