From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de (metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de [185.203.201.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE87F1607A0 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 07:49:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.203.201.7 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721634551; cv=none; b=KqNEyXj+utGWPUKUVdpOU98W3Ji830YNfiDVa7QG+rEQjPF7XT/0Ae1+3uvW/2XSFj4HfOLLWZsv5tSlT03/KwTjmcO5CeF6p5+aZlEpSrfZVZYXtkp6R0fJjEi7A+1PHGPRwke2ifbPEle7boy6MH13SAPokkAtjFzzsvIs1qg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721634551; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PNdKJp9Ck9M4KS5ovwPqlWdFJz6BJY9k0p13qloArcM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=UcCyDGAdHYdKIUYgzpfkBWpBoiZy6kipuOb6cbr6AoPfIkGCelT5kt59fAdNIRKkz3D0yvnNScOIN1UodHVluDq9jPl8TEpC7Z7LO2DFRDvgr/64zgliLJFWWXhodAyPHOghi8ifQVuvZCl5Wei/HYh+XXLQDgbmwMSOXta4cmY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pengutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pengutronix.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.203.201.7 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pengutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pengutronix.de Received: from drehscheibe.grey.stw.pengutronix.de ([2a0a:edc0:0:c01:1d::a2]) by metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sVnn3-000582-Fm; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 09:49:01 +0200 Received: from [2a0a:edc0:2:b01:1d::c5] (helo=pty.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de) by drehscheibe.grey.stw.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sVnn2-001KgX-3j; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 09:49:00 +0200 Received: from sha by pty.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1sVnn2-00BUPx-00; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 09:49:00 +0200 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 09:48:59 +0200 From: Sascha Hauer To: Brian Norris Cc: Francesco Dolcini , Kalle Valo , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Francesco Dolcini , David Lin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] wifi: mwifiex: add support for WPA-PSK-SHA256 Message-ID: References: <20240717-mwifiex-wpa-psk-sha256-v2-0-eb53d5082b62@pengutronix.de> <20240717-mwifiex-wpa-psk-sha256-v2-2-eb53d5082b62@pengutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Sent-From: Pengutronix Hildesheim X-URL: http://www.pengutronix.de/ X-Accept-Language: de,en X-Accept-Content-Type: text/plain X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a0a:edc0:0:c01:1d::a2 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: sha@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 12:05:01PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > [ +CC David, in case he has thoughts ] > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 08:04:59AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 03:55:18PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 10:30:08AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > > This adds support for the WPA-PSK AKM suite with SHA256 as hashing > > > > method (WPA-PSK-SHA256). Tested with a wpa_supplicant provided AP > > > > using key_mgmt=WPA-PSK-SHA256. > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Francesco Dolcini > > > > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer > > > > --- > > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/fw.h | 1 + > > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_cmd.c | 3 +++ > > > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/fw.h b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/fw.h > > > > index 3adc447b715f6..1c76754b616ff 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/fw.h > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/fw.h > > > > @@ -415,6 +415,7 @@ enum MWIFIEX_802_11_PRIVACY_FILTER { > > > > #define KEY_MGMT_NONE 0x04 > > > > #define KEY_MGMT_PSK 0x02 > > > > #define KEY_MGMT_EAP 0x01 > > > > +#define KEY_MGMT_PSK_SHA256 0x100 > > > > #define CIPHER_TKIP 0x04 > > > > #define CIPHER_AES_CCMP 0x08 > > > > #define VALID_CIPHER_BITMAP 0x0c > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_cmd.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_cmd.c > > > > index 7f822660fd955..c055fdc7114ba 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_cmd.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/uap_cmd.c > > > > @@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ int mwifiex_set_secure_params(struct mwifiex_private *priv, > > > > case WLAN_AKM_SUITE_PSK: > > > > bss_config->key_mgmt = KEY_MGMT_PSK; > > > > break; > > > > + case WLAN_AKM_SUITE_PSK_SHA256: > > > > + bss_config->key_mgmt = KEY_MGMT_PSK_SHA256; > > > > + break; > > > > > > I feel like this relates to previous questions you've had [1], and while > > > I think the answer at the time made sense to me (basically, EAP and PSK > > > are mutually exclusive), it makes less sense to me here that PSK-SHA256 > > > is mutually exclusive with PSK. And in particular, IIUC, this means that > > > the ordering in a wpa_supplicant.conf line like > > > > > > key_mgmt=WPA-PSK WPA-PSK-SHA256 > > > > > > matters -- only the latter will actually be in use. > > > > > > Is that intended? Is this really a single-value field, and not a > > > multiple-option bitfield? > > > > It seems that when only the KEY_MGMT_PSK_SHA256 is set, then > > KEY_MGMT_PSK also works. Likewise, when only KEY_MGMT_SAE is set, then > > also KEY_MGMT_PSK_SHA256 and KEY_MGMT_PSK work. > > I gave it a test and also was surprised to see that we only have to set > > the "most advanced" bit which then includes the "less advanced" features > > automatically. > > Huh, that's interesting. So these KEY_MGMT* flags don't really mean what > they say. It might be nice to have some additional commentary in the > driver in that case. > > > I could change setting the key_mgmt bits to |= as it feels more natural > > and raises less eyebrows, but in my testing it didn't make a difference. Thinking about this again we really do need to use '|=' and not '=' to make the result independent of the ordering of the AKM suites array entries. > > That would make sense to me, but I think that's in conflict with what > David Lin said here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/PA4PR04MB9638B7F0F4E49F79057C15FBD1CD2@PA4PR04MB9638.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com/ > > "Firmware can only support one of WLAN_AKM_SUITE_8021X, > WLAN_AKM_SUITE_PSK, or WLAN_AKM_SUITE_SAE." I don't really know how this sentence was meant. It clearly works when both WLAN_AKM_SUITE_PSK and WLAN_AKM_SUITE_SAE are advertised. Of course in the only one of both is selected by the station. > > If that's true, then it seems like we need some kind of priority > conditions here (e.g., if PSK is provided, but then we see PSK_SHA256, > let PSK_SHA256 override -- but not vice versa). That might be pretty > ugly though. > > > BTW wpa_supplicant parses the key_mgmt options into a bitfield which is > > then evaluated elsewhere, so the order the AKM suites are passed to the > > kernel is always the same, regardless of the order they appear in the > > config. > > I hear you, but that's not really how we define kernel APIs -- by the > particular implementation of a single commonly-used user space. I know. I wrote this just as a note that we can't use wpa_supplicant out of the box to actually test how a different order of AKM suites in the array behaves. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |