linux-kernel - Re: Bisected 3.9 regression for iwl4965 connection problem to 1672c0e3

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 7 May 2013 10:42:42 +0200
From:	Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	Jake Edge <jake@....net>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bisected 3.9 regression for iwl4965 connection problem to
 1672c0e3

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 05:44:06PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 17:31 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 
> > > But if so, I would also see
> > > the breakage on my setup, but I don't - it works quite well here. 
> > 
> > Are you testing on a passive channel? Try with a large beacon interval.
> 
> I think most likely what happens is that it's on a passive channel, and
> the firmware drops the TX packet with a bad status. Before the patch,
> we'd just wait sitting on the channel for HZ/5 (200ms) before trying
> again, with the patch we immediately retransmit the packet, which will
> fail again and again until the firmware received a beacon.
> 
> If you look at iwlwifi/dvm/, it has some passive_no_rx workaround for
> this, which I don't see in iwlegacy.

Can you explain why it is named passive_no_rx instead passive_no_tx ?

> I think the best way to solve this would be to do such a thing in
> iwlegacy as well, but until then and for stable maybe we should
> introduce another HW flag to restore the previous mac80211 behaviour?

I'm not sure if I like to add passive_no_rx to iwlegacy. Stopping queues
and waiting for beacon looks sticky, what happen if beacon will not be
received?

Perhaps I will just remove IEEE80211_HW_REPORTS_TX_ACK_STATUS from 4965,
it's simpler workaround ?

Stanislaw
--
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/