Send connman mailing list submissions to
        connman@lists.01.org

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
        connman-requ...@lists.01.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        connman-ow...@lists.01.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of connman digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: When BackgroundScanning = false, connman's Scan() dbus
      method is broken (Daniel Wagner)
   2. Re: AW: AW: connmand[186]: Online check failed but running
      dhclient manually fixes this issue (Daniel Wagner)
   3. Re: When BackgroundScanning = false, connman's Scan() dbus
      method is broken (Jose Blanquicet)
   4. Re: When BackgroundScanning = false, connman's Scan() dbus
      method is broken (Daniel Wagner)
   5. Re: When BackgroundScanning = false, connman's Scan() dbus
      method is broken (Sam Nazarko)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:20:10 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org>
To: Jonah Petri <jo...@sense.com>
Cc: Jose Blanquicet <blanqui...@gmail.com>, connman@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: When BackgroundScanning = false, connman's Scan() dbus
        method is broken
Message-ID: <cbfd6d7c-b10a-e72f-b5e3-1a31f6db1...@monom.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed



On 08/09/2017 04:24 PM, Jonah Petri wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> Thanks for having a look.  Comments below.
> 
>> On Aug 9, 2017, at 6:35 AM, Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I added Jose to the list. He did some larger work in the recent days and 
>> might have an idea where the problem is.
>>
>> On 08/08/2017 05:10 PM, Jonah Petri wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> I want to report an issue with connman.  We set BackgroundScanning = false 
>>> in main.conf.  However, I have found that this also causes connman to give 
>>> an erroneous empty response to the Scan() dbus call, potentially 
>>> permanently disabling the device.
>>> The key preconditions seem to be:
>>> 1) wpa_supplicant reports a max_ssids > 1
>>> 2) the computer must have been previously associated to a SSID which is no 
>>> longer visible
>>
>> 'previously asscioated' is from a previous run? ConnMan has been restarted 
>> but not wpa_supplicant? Or the whole box has been restarted?
> 
> In my case, the whole box has been restarted.  But, from code examination, if 
> get_latest_connections() doesn't return empty, then the #2 precondition is 
> satisfied.   I'm not sure all the ways that could become the case, but at 
> least the following works: associating with a network, unplugging the device, 
> unplugging the AP, then booting the device.

Okay, the state (already connected to some network) is preserved 
somewhere persistently.
>>> 3) as above, BackgroundScanning must be set to false
>>> This causes the logic of wifi.c:wifi_scan() to fail.  In particular:
>>> 1) wifi_scan_simple is not used, due to the above preconditions.
>>> 2) connman requests an active scan via wpa_supplicant for the ssids 
>>> returned by get_latest_connections.
>>> 3) connman does not request a followup passive scan, as BackgroundScanning 
>>> is turned off, which causes start_autoscan() to exit early.
>>
>> autoscan is supposed to emulate the background scanning in ConnMan. 
>> According the following comment it should even be removed eventually:
>>
>> /**
>> * Used for autoscan "emulation".
>> * Should be removed when wpa_s autoscan support will be by default.
>> */
>> struct autoscan_params {
>>      int base;
>>      int limit;
>>      int interval;
>>      unsigned int timeout;
>> };
>>
>> But it looks like it also used for the active scanning these days. If this 
>> true maybe the following patch might help (shot into the dark):
>>
> 
> Thanks!  I see what you're doing there.  Isn't that change equivalent to 
> always setting BackgroundScanning to true?  If so, that doesn't seem like the 
> right thing. Better to deprecate and ignore BackgroundScanning, I would 
> think.  I'll await Jose's comments as well.

Yeah, quite likely that my patch is not working. It should not be labled 
as PATCH, FAIL would match it better :)

This code is horrible complex and quite hard to debug. It is a while 
since I looked at this code. I am still wondering how the active scan is 
supposed to work here.

Thanks,
Daniel


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:36:45 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org>
To: Christophe Ronco <c.ro...@kerlink.fr>, "Eswaran Vinothkumar
        (BEG/PJ-IOT-EL)" <vinothkumar.eswa...@de.bosch.com>
Cc: "connman@lists.01.org" <connman@lists.01.org>, of...@ofono.org
Subject: Re: AW: AW: connmand[186]: Online check failed but running
        dhclient manually fixes this issue
Message-ID: <03c78aa2-1016-e200-b933-ef25627b5...@monom.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

Hi Christophe and Eswaran,

I just discussed this problem with Denis on IRC. Denis is quite sure the 
modem is broken. To fix this, we need to add a quirk to the device 
driver in oFono code base which disables the IP configuration reporting. 
With this ConnMan will use DHCP in those cases.

Could you send me the exact modem description you are using? So that we 
can write quirk?

Thanks,
Daniel


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 16:58:31 +0000
From: Jose Blanquicet <blanqui...@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org>, Jonah Petri <jo...@sense.com>
Cc: connman@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: When BackgroundScanning = false, connman's Scan() dbus
        method is broken
Message-ID:
        <cafc8ij+lqz_pdozwbzgz9p6wcqhdoh-48qsyc8zus_ooeu-...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 08/09/2017 04:24 PM, Jonah Petri wrote:
>>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> Thanks for having a look.  Comments below.
>>
>>> On Aug 9, 2017, at 6:35 AM, Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I added Jose to the list. He did some larger work in the recent days and
>>> might have an idea where the problem is.
>>>
>>> On 08/08/2017 05:10 PM, Jonah Petri wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>> I want to report an issue with connman.  We set BackgroundScanning =
>>>> false in main.conf.  However, I have found that this also causes connman to
>>>> give an erroneous empty response to the Scan() dbus call, potentially
>>>> permanently disabling the device.
>>>> The key preconditions seem to be:
>>>> 1) wpa_supplicant reports a max_ssids > 1
>>>> 2) the computer must have been previously associated to a SSID which is
>>>> no longer visible
>>>
>>>
>>> 'previously asscioated' is from a previous run? ConnMan has been
>>> restarted but not wpa_supplicant? Or the whole box has been restarted?
>>
>>
>> In my case, the whole box has been restarted.  But, from code examination,
>> if get_latest_connections() doesn't return empty, then the #2 precondition
>> is satisfied.   I'm not sure all the ways that could become the case, but at
>> least the following works: associating with a network, unplugging the
>> device, unplugging the AP, then booting the device.
>
>
> Okay, the state (already connected to some network) is preserved somewhere
> persistently.
>>>>
>>>> 3) as above, BackgroundScanning must be set to false
>>>> This causes the logic of wifi.c:wifi_scan() to fail.  In particular:
>>>> 1) wifi_scan_simple is not used, due to the above preconditions.
>>>> 2) connman requests an active scan via wpa_supplicant for the ssids
>>>> returned by get_latest_connections.
>>>> 3) connman does not request a followup passive scan, as
>>>> BackgroundScanning is turned off, which causes start_autoscan() to exit
>>>> early.
>>>
>>>
>>> autoscan is supposed to emulate the background scanning in ConnMan.
>>> According the following comment it should even be removed eventually:
>>>
>>> /**
>>> * Used for autoscan "emulation".
>>> * Should be removed when wpa_s autoscan support will be by default.
>>> */
>>> struct autoscan_params {
>>>         int base;
>>>         int limit;
>>>         int interval;
>>>         unsigned int timeout;
>>> };
>>>
>>> But it looks like it also used for the active scanning these days. If
>>> this true maybe the following patch might help (shot into the dark):
>>>
>>
>> Thanks!  I see what you're doing there.  Isn't that change equivalent to
>> always setting BackgroundScanning to true?  If so, that doesn't seem like
>> the right thing. Better to deprecate and ignore BackgroundScanning, I would
>> think.  I'll await Jose's comments as well.
>
>
> Yeah, quite likely that my patch is not working. It should not be labled as
> PATCH, FAIL would match it better :)
>
> This code is horrible complex and quite hard to debug. It is a while since I
> looked at this code. I am still wondering how the active scan is supposed to
> work here.

I will try to have a look at this tomorrow. I think I know what is
going on here, or at least I could help you to understand what is
happening.

Best regards,

Jose Blanquicet


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:01:13 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org>
To: Jose Blanquicet <blanqui...@gmail.com>, Jonah Petri
        <jo...@sense.com>
Cc: connman@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: When BackgroundScanning = false, connman's Scan() dbus
        method is broken
Message-ID: <6202cac4-382e-abcd-eb3d-7c34acdb9...@monom.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed



On 08/09/2017 06:58 PM, Jose Blanquicet wrote:
>> This code is horrible complex and quite hard to debug. It is a while since I
>> looked at this code. I am still wondering how the active scan is supposed to
>> work here.
> 
> I will try to have a look at this tomorrow. I think I know what is
> going on here, or at least I could help you to understand what is
> happening.

Excellent! Thank a lot!

cheers,
Daniel


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 18:28:18 +0000
From: Sam Nazarko <em...@samnazarko.co.uk>
To: Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org>, Jonah Petri <jo...@sense.com>
Cc: "connman@lists.01.org" <connman@lists.01.org>
Subject: Re: When BackgroundScanning = false, connman's Scan() dbus
        method is broken
Message-ID: <1502303298056.36...@samnazarko.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> I hoped that Sam is has some input on this. Sorry for the confusion.

Hi,

Unfortunately we only tested this with 1.34. 
Therefore I can't comment on when the issue was introduced and whether it was a 
recent regression.

We do want to get this working soon though, so I'll see if I can get a chance 
to look
at this next week and find a way to reliably reproduce the issue. 

Sam

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
connman@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/connman


------------------------------

End of connman Digest, Vol 22, Issue 8
**************************************

Reply via email to