linux-kernel - Re: failed to remove key (0, ce:ce:1e:27:bb:e0) from hardware (-110) (ETIMEDOUT)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <7ccfcd67-986b-40a3-8311-73b5335f980c@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 09:36:29 -0700
From: James Prestwood <prestwoj@...il.com>
To: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>, Baochen Qiang <quic_bqiang@...cinc.com>,
 linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, ath10k@...ts.infradead.org,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: failed to remove key (0, ce:ce:1e:27:bb:e0) from hardware (-110)
 (ETIMEDOUT)

Hi Paul,

On 10/11/24 5:48 AM, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear James,
>
>
> Am 04.09.24 um 16:09 schrieb James Prestwood:
>
>> On 9/4/24 3:45 AM, Paul Menzel wrote:
>
>>> Linux 6.11-rc6+ logged the warning below when resuming from ACPI S3 
>>> (or unloading and loading the `ath10k_core`/`ath10k_pci` modules) 
>>> having been connected to an AVM network:
>>>
>>>     wlp58s0: failed to remove key (0, ce:ce:1e:27:bb:e0) from 
>>> hardware (-110)
>>>
>>> Error code 110 is the value for ETIMEDOUT. I saw James patch [1], 
>>> and applied it, and the error is still there (as expected).
>>
>> My patch won't actually fix the timeout, I just lowered the time that 
>> ath10k would wait before it continued which fixed some 
>> incompatibility on the AP side of things. Based on your logs though, 
>> it appears you already got disconnected before the failure to remove 
>> the key...
>
> I am still applying your patch manually on the current master branch, 
> and it looks like it hasn’t still been reviewed. Maybe it’s due to the 
> RFC tag. Do you plan on moving it ahead?

There was another thread, which I cant seem to find where Kalle had 
mentioned the RFC patch. IIRC Kalle had said the proper fix is in the 
firmware, and would rather not take this patch upstream if we can get 
the firmware addressed. And I would have to agree this is the best 
approach if this is an option. This RFC patch was merely a workaround 
for some odd behavior with Cisco APs that one of our customers was 
using, where the APs would actually reject roams if they took too long, 
hence why reducing the timeout "fixed" the problem.

Last I checked your situation was different, your device got 
disconnected _then_ failed to remove the key. If this is the case my RFC 
patch isn't going to really change much, apart from fail in 1 second vs 
3 seconds.

Thanks,

James

>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul
>
>
>>> [1]: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240814164507.996303-1-prestwoj@gmail.com/