linux-kernel - Re: [regression] Bug 216753 - 6e 6 ghz bands are disabled since 5.16 on intel ax211

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]

Message-ID: <0611323c-2088-e6f3-1c38-7cf742dfb60d@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Sun, 4 Dec 2022 10:37:42 +0100
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To:     mbizon@...ebox.fr, Dave Chiluk <chiluk@...ntu.com>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc:     "Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@...el.com>,
        "Greenman, Gregory" <gregory.greenman@...el.com>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        "regressions@...ts.linux.dev" <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [regression] Bug 216753 - 6e 6 ghz bands are disabled since 5.16
 on intel ax211

On 02.12.22 18:42, Maxime Bizon wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 11:18 -0600, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> 
>> The 6ghz band becomes disabled as soon as I upgrade to the 5.16+
>> linux-stable kernels. So from a user perspective this really is a
>> case of a kernel upgrade breaking user-space.  This is what led me
>> down this rabbit hole here.
>  
> FWIW
> 
> I have the same issue on a Lenovo T14 gen2 laptop with built-in ax210
> card, and sold as Wifi-6E compliant.
> 
> The exact patch you mention causes the issue, so it seems my bios does
> not return the correct values either.

That makes me (as a outsider that has no real knowledge about the inner
workings of the Linux Wifi subsystem) wonder: Does it work in Windows?
Because if that's the case I wonder how Windows ensures everything
confirms to regulatory requirements & standards. If that handled on the
software level if the info is missing in the firmware? Or is there a
another place in the firmware structures where Windows looks for details
(and we don't).

Or is that a Linux-only machine that might even use a different firmware?

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)

P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.