Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 20:04 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: But unfortunately we do have some regressions right now, and we've got to look at how to fix those. If we do go driver-specific in NetworkManager, then there really will be a Flag Day where we turn off that support and force drivers to be WEXT compliant. If distros don't like that, they can either fix the drivers or patch NM (Fedora included). I'd like that day to be as soon as realistically possible. I am for considering driver-specific support, but I agree 100% we want to move toward a pure WEXT-based solution, sooner rather than later. I guess we should see what we fix by going driver-specific with wpa_supplicant. How easy is the changeover? Robert Love ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 11:52 -0500, Robert Love wrote: On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 20:04 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: But unfortunately we do have some regressions right now, and we've got to look at how to fix those. If we do go driver-specific in NetworkManager, then there really will be a Flag Day where we turn off that support and force drivers to be WEXT compliant. If distros don't like that, they can either fix the drivers or patch NM (Fedora included). I'd like that day to be as soon as realistically possible. I am for considering driver-specific support, but I agree 100% we want to move toward a pure WEXT-based solution, sooner rather than later. I guess we should see what we fix by going driver-specific with wpa_supplicant. How easy is the changeover? We find drivers that need special-casing, and change the arguments to wpa_supplicant. Essentially, we should default to wext, grab nm_device_get_driver(), and if it needs special-casing, convert that to the wpa_supplicant driver name. Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
Hi, On Sunday 08 January 2006 22:48, Dan Williams wrote: *) Your driver probably doesn't support WPA quite enough; you'll need a driver that does WEXT-18 or higher. This means that it needs to set the enc_capa bits on return from the SIOCGIWRANGE call, which only hostap seems to do right now. The attached patch works for ipw2100, but only because it can already do WPA. It was simply not telling NM that it could. Other drivers may need substantial changes to work with WEXT-18's enhanced encryption API. Drivers that _may_ work with few changes: ipw2100, ipw2200, atmel, prism54. Drivers that need lots of fixup: orinoco, airo, bcm43xx. as a ipw2200 user may I forward this to ipw-devel list, or are you working somehow together with intel (or other) driver guys?! Thanks for your excellent work. Nikolaus -- out of signatures ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 10:58 +0100, Nikolaus Filus wrote: Hi, On Sunday 08 January 2006 22:48, Dan Williams wrote: *) Your driver probably doesn't support WPA quite enough; you'll need a driver that does WEXT-18 or higher. This means that it needs to set the enc_capa bits on return from the SIOCGIWRANGE call, which only hostap seems to do right now. The attached patch works for ipw2100, but only because it can already do WPA. It was simply not telling NM that it could. Other drivers may need substantial changes to work with WEXT-18's enhanced encryption API. Drivers that _may_ work with few changes: ipw2100, ipw2200, atmel, prism54. Drivers that need lots of fixup: orinoco, airo, bcm43xx. as a ipw2200 user may I forward this to ipw-devel list, or are you working somehow together with intel (or other) driver guys?! I'll forward the patch to both ipw and kernel (netdev) devel lists. Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 10:55 -0500, Robert Love wrote: On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 16:48 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: *) Your driver probably doesn't support WPA quite enough; you'll need a driver that does WEXT-18 or higher. This means that it needs to set the enc_capa bits on return from the SIOCGIWRANGE call, which only hostap seems to do right now. So ... should we need these updates to use WPA, or for the driver to work at all? Just to use WPA. All cards should support WEP already since you don't need fancy calls to do that... Unless wpa_supplicant is trying to be clever. In the case of ipw2100, NM checks the range-enc_capa field for WPA support bits, but WEP isn't determined from there. If there are problems with wpa_supplicant and WEP, then we definitely need to chase those down. Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 11:11 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: Just to use WPA. All cards should support WEP already since you don't need fancy calls to do that... Unless wpa_supplicant is trying to be clever. Seems to be. SIOCSIWAUTH not being supported shuts the whole process down. This is an Atheros. Robert Love ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 11:16 -0500, Robert Love wrote: Seems to be. SIOCSIWAUTH not being supported shuts the whole process down. This is an Atheros. Alright, got it working. Nice! I still see a boatload of SIOCSIWAUTH Operation not supported errors. But, whatever. Is 0.4.7 + your patch sufficient for WPA? Or do we need something even newer? Robert Love ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 11:31 -0500, Robert Love wrote: On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 11:16 -0500, Robert Love wrote: Seems to be. SIOCSIWAUTH not being supported shuts the whole process down. This is an Atheros. Alright, got it working. Nice! I still see a boatload of SIOCSIWAUTH Operation not supported errors. But, whatever. Is 0.4.7 + your patch sufficient for WPA? Or do we need something even newer? I think 0.4.7 is OK, I'm using HEAD but looking at the changelog there's not much that should affect functionality since before Christmas at least. I think at the very least we should make sure 0.4.7 works correctly for us, and patch it if we need to. Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 11:46 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: I think 0.4.7 is OK, I'm using HEAD but looking at the changelog there's not much that should affect functionality since before Christmas at least. I think at the very least we should make sure 0.4.7 works correctly for us, and patch it if we need to. wpa_supplicant 0.4.7 + your patch works fine for non-WPA. I'll try WPA in a bit -- not sure if it will work out-of-the-box with madwifi-ng. Have you / will you submit your patch upstream to wpa_supplicant? Robert Love ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 12:02 -0500, Robert Love wrote: On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 11:46 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: I think 0.4.7 is OK, I'm using HEAD but looking at the changelog there's not much that should affect functionality since before Christmas at least. I think at the very least we should make sure 0.4.7 works correctly for us, and patch it if we need to. wpa_supplicant 0.4.7 + your patch works fine for non-WPA. I'll try WPA in a bit -- not sure if it will work out-of-the-box with madwifi-ng. Have you / will you submit your patch upstream to wpa_supplicant? Sent the patch to Jouni and [EMAIL PROTECTED] last night. dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 10:55 -0500, Robert Love wrote: On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 16:48 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: *) Your driver probably doesn't support WPA quite enough; you'll need a driver that does WEXT-18 or higher. This means that it needs to set the enc_capa bits on return from the SIOCGIWRANGE call, which only hostap seems to do right now. So ... should we need these updates to use WPA, or for the driver to work at all? I get errors about SIOCSIWAUTH not supported. Note that while wpa_supplicant supports using driver-specific methods for WPA and other settings, we want to push all drivers towards conforming to the WEXT spec on this one. That means support for SIOCSIWAUTH and SIOCSIWENCODEEXT. We _may_ have to allow driver-specific support in the mean time, but I'd rather not do that if at all possible. (for instance, atmel doesn't seem to work right now for normal WEP) Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 12:18 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: Note that while wpa_supplicant supports using driver-specific methods for WPA and other settings, we want to push all drivers towards conforming to the WEXT spec on this one. That means support for SIOCSIWAUTH and SIOCSIWENCODEEXT. We _may_ have to allow driver-specific support in the mean time, but I'd rather not do that if at all possible. (for instance, atmel doesn't seem to work right now for normal WEP) We are going to need to go through the various drivers and see how they fair. We are probably going to neeed driver-specific support. Robert Love ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 12:27 -0500, Robert Love wrote: On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 12:18 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: Note that while wpa_supplicant supports using driver-specific methods for WPA and other settings, we want to push all drivers towards conforming to the WEXT spec on this one. That means support for SIOCSIWAUTH and SIOCSIWENCODEEXT. We _may_ have to allow driver-specific support in the mean time, but I'd rather not do that if at all possible. (for instance, atmel doesn't seem to work right now for normal WEP) We are going to need to go through the various drivers and see how they fair. We are probably going to neeed driver-specific support. Even if that's the case, we're going to need to push those drivers towards WEXT compliance, such that they do what they need to do with the wpa_supplicant wext driver. I'm much more amenable to making sure they all work with WEP wpa_supplicant first, and taking more time with WPA. For example, the atmel driver for wpa_supplicant doesn't work on the in-kernel atmel driver _at__all_, probably because it expects atmelwlandriver.sf.net rather than the in-kernel one. I'm looking at fixing that up for WEP-only at the moment. But unfortunately we do have some regressions right now, and we've got to look at how to fix those. If we do go driver-specific in NetworkManager, then there really will be a Flag Day where we turn off that support and force drivers to be WEXT compliant. If distros don't like that, they can either fix the drivers or patch NM (Fedora included). I'd like that day to be as soon as realistically possible. Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 16:48 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: That's about it. If you've got a relatively recent wpa_supplicant (say, from the last couple weeks or so), and you've got a WPA-capable card driver (see below *), you should be set for WPA Personal (WPA1) Preshared-Key connections. I've tested them, and it works. I'd like to clean things up, get stuff working reliably, then move on to adding WPA2-PSK/CCMP connections (ie, using AES). After than, we start doing 802.1x authentication, RADIUS, and possibly LEAP. Oh, and Bluetooth DUN, now that I have a Bluetooth phone. We should all tip our hat to Dan. Excellent work! Robert Love ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: WPA status 2006-01-08
Congratulations, this is what many people are waiting for! I'd test, but haven't a wpa-ready driver (bcm43xx). Thanks! --Derek ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
