Send connman mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/connman
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of connman digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Connman v1.33 with systemd v230 : experiencing delay in
IP assignment (Shrikant Bobade)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:12:42 +0530
From: Shrikant Bobade <[email protected]>
To: Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Connman v1.33 with systemd v230 : experiencing delay in
IP assignment
Message-ID:
<calwqerrran3b5zooez2ve49uogto+cmhjjj1d5tcp++o1nh...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Shrikant Bobade <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel, Good Morning,
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Wagner <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Good Morning Shrikant,
> >
> > On 01/11/2017 07:11 AM, Shrikant Bobade wrote:
> > >> if you start ConnMan with 'GNUTLS_NO_EXPLICIT_INIT=1 ./connmand -n
-d'
> > > it should work.
> > >>
> > >> Now I cross my fingers :D
> > >
> > > yes, with zero entropy and GNUTLS_NO_EXPLICIT_INIT=1
> >
> > Yay!
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > got successful ip assignment.
> > >
> > > do I need to post complete log some where to share.. or its fine..
> >
> > No there is no need for it anymore. We know now what it happening.
> >
> > > as we are getting now expected ip. please advice..
> >
> > So this is a configuration issue. I think the best thing we can do here
> > is update your README file and let people know what to look out for.
>
> sounds fine..
> >
> > Additionally we should also change urandom users in our code base to
> > random. Will send patches for both.
> >
> > Obviously, with GNUTLS_NO_EXPLICIT_INIT=1 we just do lazy initialization
> > and we still might hang later. Not really sure what the best approach
> > is. It depends on the use cases etc. On my desktop system I never have
> > seen this problem. The main reason is, that my system does on default
> > lazy initialization and I don't have a portal in front of my.
>
> ok, I will run some regressions to confirm it.
> >
> > > So will move ahead with explicit GNUTLS_NO_EXPLICIT_INIT=1 & remove
the
> > > rngd dependency(added earlier for ~3k entropy available), will it be
fine ?
> >
> > If you don't need wipsr really early on, you should be fine without
> > rngd. But testing might reveal that I am wrong. Hard to say :)
>
> yes, agree..
>
> I am running the regressions with GNUTLS_NO_EXPLICIT_INIT=1,
> will revert back with the observations.
>
observed during regression, there was no further hang using
GNUTLS_NO_EXPLICIT_INIT=1,
using it resolves the issue.
thanks
shrikant
>
> >
> > cheers,
> > daniel
>
> Thanks for your continuous help.
>
> Thanks
> Shrikant
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/attachments/20170119/68f958e5/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/connman
------------------------------
End of connman Digest, Vol 15, Issue 19
***************************************
