Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 10 August 2007 17:02:15 Larry Finger wrote:
>> Jory A. Pratt wrote:
>>> Larry Finger wrote:
>>>> What encryption method are you using?
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>>
>>> I use wep encryption on a WRT54G V3 with dd-wrt. I will work on it later
>>> tonight and see what I can come up with.
>> Your answer confirms my latest result in which I have been able to reproduce
>> the problem here.
>>
>> I bisected the wireless-dev kernel to an arbitrary point before the change
>> in status handling
>> (commit 85a83d26). That version could connect successfully using WEP and WPA
>> encryption. I then
>> added the status-handling patch and tried again. This kernel could still do
>> WPA encryption and it
>> could authenticate and associate with the WEP-using AP, but it could not get
>> an IP number using DHCP.
>>
>> I then did a diff between the dmesg output for the driver that works
>> (dmesg.good) and the one that
>> does not (dmesg.bad). There are the usual number of differences due to
>> slight timing difference,
>> etc, but the following difference stands out:
>>
>> --- dmesg.good 2007-08-10 09:40:23.000000000 -0500
>> +++ dmesg.bad 2007-08-10 09:41:23.000000000 -0500
>> ..snip..
>> @@ -569,7 +569,6 @@
>> bcm43xx_mac80211: 32-bit DMA initialized
>> bcm43xx_mac80211: Wireless interface started
>> NET: Registered protocol family 17
>> -bcm43xx_mac80211: Using hardware based encryption for keyidx: 0, mac:
>> ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>> eth1: Initial auth_alg=0
>> eth1: authenticate with AP 00:1a:70:46:ba:b1
>> eth1: RX authentication from 00:1a:70:46:ba:b1 (alg=0 transaction=2
>> status=0)
>>
>>
>> The good version is using hardware encryption, and the bad one is not. I
>> have no idea why, but it
>> seems to be the critical difference. I'm ready to test any trial patch.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>
> Ok, I see the bug in set_key.
>
> if (bcm43xx_status(dev) != BCM43xx_STAT_INITIALIZED) {
> err = -ENODEV;
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
> We didn't have a chance to spot the bug in the patch that introduced
> it, because it did not touch this function.
> This should be changed to
>
> if (bcm43xx_status(dev) < BCM43xx_STAT_INITIALIZED) {
> err = -ENODEV;
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
This part of set_multicast_list also was not touched by the patch
if (wl->promisc != !!(netflags & IFF_PROMISC)) {
wl->promisc = !!(netflags & IFF_PROMISC);
if (bcm43xx_status(dev) == BCM43xx_STAT_INITIALIZED)
bcm43xx_adjust_opmode(dev);
}
Is that correct? My thinking is that it should be >= BCM43xx_STAT_INITIALIZED.
Larry
_______________________________________________
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
