On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Linus, This patch changes a lot of u32s into bools in structures.
> What's your take on that?
So in general, I'd tend to prefer "bool" to be used primarily as a
return value for functions, but I have to say, in the case of
something that
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> I'm talking about the two from Jouni - the "don't encrypt EAPOL
> frames" one, and the one-liner that makes all EAPOL frames go at the
> lowest data rate.
So I just found out and confirmed that this is
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
> There may be something else wrong (say, some kind of interference), but
> there is no way we can assume normal users to be able to fix such
> issues. If we make EAPOL frames go through more robustly, the connection
> can be established in m
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
> This did not get exactly supportive response when this was proposed last
> time (Sep 2013). Anyway, for a quick test, this can be done with the
> following one-liner:
fwiw, that one-liner seems to work fine for me.
Which I guess is not a
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
> How far is the station from the AP? Would it be possible to see whether
> the behavior changes if you were within, say, five meters or so?
Well, it was pretty much within five meters already, but there was a
thin wall in between (and the o
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> This machine has a fairly minimal kernel config. Does that "type
> monitor" interface perhaps need some debug infrastructure that I
> haven't added?
Nope. Same behavior with a F21 kernel (which means that the
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
> mac80211: Do not encrypt EAPOL frames before peer has used the key
Hmm. This patch does not seem to make a difference. I thought it did
at first, but then removed the wpa_supplicant debugging, and got the
same failures.
On Sun, Feb 22, 20
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> Do you have a 5GHz SSID setup on this access point? Is this kind of
> messed up diassociation-to-steer-you-to-another-band thing?
Nope. That's the older single-band UniFi UAP - 2.4GHz only.
Linus
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> I /think/ it's okay? The removed stuff is the pre-shared key pieces.
Ok. Attached is what seems to be the relevant part of the
wpa_supplicant.log file.
The datestamp has been changed so that it can be matched up with the
dmesg, and I added
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Ugh. When I add "-dd" to the command line, it has now worked three
> times in a row, when before it worked once out of ten tries.
>
> So my guess is that it's something timing-dependent.
So it stays
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> Hm, can you enable wpa debugging to log everything whilst it's
> associating / reassociating?
Ugh. When I add "-dd" to the command line, it has now worked three
times in a row, when before it worked once out of ten tries.
So my guess is t
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> Hint: Several unifi (and most ubnt) products are well supported by
> openwrt directly,
I want Linux to "just work". None of this "oh, you can change
something else and it probably works". I want to fix the problem in
*linux*.
There's clearl
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> Just a wild shot - try disabling fast authentication and see if that
> makes a difference?
>
> wpa_supplicant.conf:
>
> fast_reauth=0
>
> I recall having issues with fast_reauth once, but I never stuck around
> that location long enough to
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
>
> Can you please post the output of 'iw dev wlp1s0 scan' ?
Attached.
It's the "UniFi-home" SSID that doesn't work. The 1gnoraNT one is the
old working one that I'm obviously associated with, and that has
multiple AP's.
(The UniFi-home
So I've had problems connecting to some networks before on my
Chromebook Pixel, but now I'm testing a new Ubiquiti network at home,
and can see this issue at home too.
I know the wireless works, because other devices work fine on that
network. Also, I know the AR9462 works, because I still have my
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
> If you still happen to be at the location with this AP, it could be
> useful to confirm that this kernel interface difference is indeed the
> reason by running the manual configuration case with -Dnl80211 added to
> the wpa_supplicant comma
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>>
>> I'm not really familiar with debugging with NM enabled, but it could be
>> possible that the instructions for the older wpa_supplicant on
>> https
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
> I'm not really familiar with debugging with NM enabled, but it could be
> possible that the instructions for the older wpa_supplicant on
> https://live.gnome.org/NetworkManager/Debugging could be adopted for
> this. The key here would be to
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
> This looks very basic case taken into account the AP configuration (just
> WPA2-Personal/CCMP) and passphrase that should not allow much of a
> chance for typos or encoding issues (non-ASCII..).
Hmm. I'm certain I didn't mistype it, and I
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> that web page
> tells me how to add them, so I'll do that (I obviously lose my network
> when I try this, so I'm not doing it while writing this email ;)
Ok, full wpasupplicant log added to the RH NetworkManager bug
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
> Did you happen to notice whether wpa_supplicant showed more than one
> attempt at associating with the AP?
According to the kernel messages, there seems to be just a single
quick association:
IOW, this is what happens with wpa_supplicant:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Interestingly, the kernel messages from doing this were different:
>
> wlan0: RX AssocResp from 50:46:5d:02:85:08 (capab=0x411 status=0 aid=16)
>
> notice how now it says "aid=16" instead of "aid=10&qu
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:
> Can you try disabling network manager from the init scripts (I am not
> sure which distro you are using as a base but
> /etc/init.d/network-manager stop ) tends to work for a percentage of
> machines.
>
> Then running wpa_supplicant man
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Outback Dingo wrote:
> bad firmware load on a crappy wireless AP probably, I just flashed the
> latest firmware on a new Netgear, and had exactly the same issue
> flashed back to the original firmware and the issue goes away, question is
> whats the router and vers
Ok, I'm sure this is something people have seen before, but it has me stumped.
I'm on the road for a couple of days with my google ChromeBook pixel,
which worked perfectly fine in the previous location I was at, and
works fine at home. But in the current condo, the machine simply
*cannot* connect
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
>
> This is not a reason, this is just stating what happens without
> explaining *why*.
>
> Q: What changes when a tag is made?
> A: A tag is made
I'll make one more try at explaining to you, but then I'll just set my
mail reader to ignore
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
>
> Sure, but removing that patch from the stable tree is not going the
> change that information; we already know the patch is wrong.
.. and we wait until it has been fixed in mainline so that we *know*
that information doesn't get lost.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> So just reverting it from stable, *WITHOUT LEARNING THE LESSON*, is
> not a no-op at all, it's a sign of being a f*cking moron.
Btw, the revert is now in my tree (commit 011afa1ed8c4), and marked
for stable. So *now* Greg
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
>
> I could argue in favor of exceptions, but I don't think you realize
> the fact that this change does not affect your tree *at all*. Adding
> and removing a patch in the stable tree is a no-op.
You're a fucking moron.
It's not a no-op a
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
>>
>> A revert is the same as a patch. It needs to be in Linus's tree before
>> I can add it to the stable releases.
>
> Right, because otherwise people's systems would actually work.
There are rules for a damn good reason.
The rule for -
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 12.04.2012, Sergio Correia wrote:
>
>> is there any chance for this one to be included in this review cycle?
>>
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg87999.html
>
> Thanks for pointing this out! This patch fixes my network proble
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> > In fact, if you know what kind of IO op it is (ie "it's always MMIO"),
> > you'd be even better using "writel()" directly,
>
> Heh.. you realize I tried to document such a thing a while ago and it
> seems you opposed it [1]?
If it's mapped wi
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> That is the way I had it originally before submission, and I
> completely agree its reasonable to not incur additional cost at the
> expense of having two separate read/write paths, and perhaps we should
> only incur the extra cost on routines sh
33 matches
Mail list logo
