| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=EOSecwfrS-zC+gaAzY=+ZtJbxQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:10:46 +0530
From: Mohammed Shafi <shafi.wireless@...il.com>
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@...ebsd.org>,
Fred Matthews <fredmm@...mail.co.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
ath9k-devel@...ema.h4ckr.net, ath9k-devel@...ts.ath9k.org,
susinder@....qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] Disabling the third antenna for AR9380 in ath9k
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@...ebsd.org> wrote:
> As I said, there's a value in the ath9k code that gets set based on
> the chipset type.
>
> static void setup_ht_cap(struct ath_softc *sc,
> struct ieee80211_sta_ht_cap *ht_info)
>
> in init.c
>
> That should be all you need to do to communicate to the higher layers
> that you only support 2 streams.
rather than changing the chain mask via debugfs, the best way is to
hard code them when we read the chain mask from EEPROM(with inputs
from Susinder)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c
index 07827b5..b96e380 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c
@@ -1990,6 +1990,9 @@ int ath9k_hw_fill_cap_info(struct ath_hw *ah)
/* Use rx_chainmask from EEPROM. */
pCap->rx_chainmask = ah->eep_ops->get_eeprom(ah, EEP_RX_MASK);
+ pCap->tx_chainmask = 0x3;
+ pCap->rx_chainmask = 0x3;
+
ah->misc_mode |= AR_PCU_MIC_NEW_LOC_ENA;
/* enable key search for every frame in an aggregate */
>
> You're checking the wrong place. You're seeing _TX_ errors, but what
> you're not seeing (likely because you don't have a 3 stream peer) is
> that you're still advertising supporting MCS0->24, so peers may send
> you MCS16->24 even though you can't receive it.
>
> The correct way is to patch the driver to only enable 2 streams in the
> HT capability setup, so mac80211 and the rate control code only
> advertises MCS0-15 and TX'es MCS0-15 respectively.
>
> (You have to do this as well as disabling the third chain btw.)
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
> On 23 June 2011 20:16, Mohammed Shafi <shafi.wireless@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Fred Matthews <fredmm@...mail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Regarding streams used in Minstrel RC, I found that in "net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.h", at line 16, there is "#define MINSTREL_MAX_STREAMS 3", that sets the number of streams for minstrel RC.
>>>
>>> Now can someone help to pass this onto debugfs, so that we can change from 3 streams to 2 streams at runtime like the rx_chainmask. I tried creating a u8 stream_number and struct dentry *dbg_stream_number in the header file, then a debugfs_create_u8 in the c file. Then used it to redefine MINSTREL_MAX_STREAMS, but when I tested this I got errors, therefore, can anyone kindly share a patch to do this correctly.
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> i am not familiar with the minstrel rate control, but as you had asked
>> I grep'd for MINSTREL_MAX_STREAMS to see if we can quickly add a debug
>> entry to change it. but usage like this below suggests we can quickly
>> hack the macro to 2 rather than adding a debug entry
>>
>> const struct mcs_group minstrel_mcs_groups[] = {
>> MCS_GROUP(1, 0, 0),
>> MCS_GROUP(2, 0, 0),
>> #if MINSTREL_MAX_STREAMS >= 3
>> MCS_GROUP(3, 0, 0),
>> #endif
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Mohammed Shafi wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Fred Matthews wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I used that command to disable the third antenna, and applied it to both AP
>>>>> and STA AR9380 NICs.
>>>>> I then performed an IPerf test between both and then captured the statistics
>>>>> from the sender, (below) .
>>>>> You can see that in rc_stats (minstrel), the rate control actually
>>>>> "attempts" sending on 3 stream MCSs (16-23) around 256 times each.
>>>>
>>>> just a guess. as we are changing the chain mask via debugfs and there
>>>> may be a chance we may not have informed the minstrel rate control
>>>> which is maintained in upper layer(mac80211) and it might be taking
>>>> what we have configured the chain masks while we had initialized the
>>>> device and i have very little idea about ministrel rate control
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any way to prevent the RC from even attempting those rates, as if I
>>>>> where to fully imitate an AR9280, it shouldnt attempt at those MCSs.
>>>>
>>>> may be we can try with ath9k rate control, and see what happens which
>>>> is within the ath9k driver and affects xmit.c and it may have been
>>>> informed of the chain mask change.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can Susinders comments also be detailed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>>
>>>>> # cat /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/netdev\:wlan0/stations/00\MAC/
>>>>>
>>>>> AUTH
>>>>> ASSOC
>>>>> AUTHORIZED
>>>>> WME
>>>>> ht supported
>>>>> cap: 0x11ce
>>>>> HT20/HT40
>>>>> SM Power Save disabled
>>>>> RX HT40 SGI
>>>>> TX STBC
>>>>> RX STBC 1-stream
>>>>> Max AMSDU length: 7935 bytes
>>>>> DSSS/CCK HT40
>>>>> ampdu factor/density: 3/6
>>>>> MCS mask: ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>>> MCS tx params: 1
>>>>> 792
>>>>> 150 ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff 60 ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff
>>>>> a40
>>>>> -77
>>>>> 0
>>>>> type rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt
>>>>> success attempts
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS0 6.6 99.9 100.0 0( 0) 163
>>>>> 230
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS1 13.1 100.0 100.0 0( 0) 75
>>>>> 75
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS2 19.3 100.0 100.0 0( 0) 252
>>>>> 252
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS3 25.4 100.0 100.0 0( 0) 75
>>>>> 75
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS4 36.2 97.5 100.0 0( 0) 413
>>>>> 474
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 76
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 80
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS8 13.1 100.0 100.0 0( 0) 75
>>>>> 75
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS9 25.4 100.0 100.0 0( 0) 70
>>>>> 70
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS10 34.2 92.2 100.0 0( 0) 79
>>>>> 82
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 76
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 75
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 68
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 85
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 257
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT20/LGI MCS23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS0 13.6 100.0 100.0 0( 0) 75
>>>>> 75
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS1 26.5 100.0 100.0 0( 0) 72
>>>>> 72
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS2 38.3 100.0 100.0 0( 0) 73
>>>>> 73
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS3 49.7 99.9 100.0 0( 0) 70
>>>>> 73
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 10
>>>>> 1220
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS8 26.2 98.9 100.0 0( 0) 73
>>>>> 74
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS9 49.3 99.2 100.0 0( 0) 67
>>>>> 69
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS10 20.5 28.9 0.0 0( 0) 14
>>>>> 255
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 257
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 74
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 255
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/LGI MCS23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS0 15.1 100.0 100.0 0( 0) 70
>>>>> 70
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS1 29.2 100.0 100.0 0( 0) 72
>>>>> 72
>>>>> HT40/SGI t MCS2 38.5 91.3 100.0 0( 0) 81
>>>>> 83
>>>>> HT40/SGI PMCS3 54.3 99.5 100.0 0( 0) 66536
>>>>> 67803
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS8 29.2 100.0 100.0 0( 0) 67
>>>>> 67
>>>>> HT40/SGI T MCS9 54.6 99.9 100.0 0( 0) 310227
>>>>> 312339
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS10 22.7 29.3 100.0 0( 0) 14
>>>>> 46.8 Mbits/sec 255
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 255
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 68
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 255
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>> HT40/SGI MCS23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
>>>>> 256
>>>>>
>>>>> Total packet count:: ideal 365056 lookaround 13702
>>>>> Average A-MPDU length: 5.4
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:25:36 +0530
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] Disabling the third antenna for AR9380 in ath9k
>>>>>> From: shafi.wireless@...il.com
>>>>>> To: fredmm@...mail.co.uk
>>>>>> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org;
>>>>>> ath9k-devel@...ema.h4ckr.net; ath9k-devel@...ts.ath9k.org;
>>>>>> susinder@....qualcomm.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Fred Matthews
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>>> > I am installing the AR9380 NIC on laptops, but some only have two UFL
>>>>>> > connectors, and thus I was wondering if using only two of the UFL
>>>>>> > antenna
>>>>>> > ports will have any negative effect or difference than installing a 2x2
>>>>>> > NIC
>>>>>> > (AR9280 for example which has only 2 ports anyway). Please kindly
>>>>>> > explain
>>>>>> > with references if possible.
>>>>>> > Also for example is there anyway to disable transmission on the third
>>>>>> > UFL
>>>>>> > port (antenna) from ath9k or otherwise.
>>>>>> > Thank you all very much
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you can change the tx/rx chainmask for 3x3 AR9380 to disable
>>>>>> transmission on the third antenna
>>>>>> cd /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/ath9k# echo 0x3 > tx_chainmask
>>>>>> cd /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/ath9k# echo 0x3 > rx_chainmask
>>>>>>
>>>>>> after this, ideally it should operate as 2x2 device as per Susinders
>>>>>> comments. but if you got AR9280 please try to use that if 2 antenna is
>>>>>> the constraint.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > ath9k-devel mailing list
>>>>>> > ath9k-devel@...ts.ath9k.org
>>>>>> > https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> shafi
>>
>
--
shafi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists