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: When BackgroundScanning = false, connman's Scan() dbus
method is broken (Jonah Petri)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:17:50 -0400
From: Jonah Petri <[email protected]>
To: Jose Blanquicet <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>, Patrik Flykt
<[email protected]>, Sam Nazarko <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Subject: Re: When BackgroundScanning = false, connman's Scan() dbus
method is broken
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Jose,
>> On Aug 27, 2017, at 10:48 AM, Jose Blanquicet <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> In my initial idea I proposed to perform passive scan, no matter the
>> BackgroundScanning value, when user performs a Scan() D-Bus call to
>> ensure all networks are found. However, while trying to implement it
>> and due to the reasons I explained before, I realized that it could
>> also increase the auto-connection procedure with the default ConnMan's
>> configuration, i.e. BackgroundScanning enabled. Therefore, I am now
>> limiting this change to users who manually disabled
>> BackgroundScanning.
>>
>> Patrik, Daniel, what do you think?
>>
>> Jonah, please test this patch:
>>
>
> Thanks for your efforts thinking through the code, and getting the patch put
> together!
>
> I tested the patch you provided, and it does appear to solve the problem as
> described. I'll promote that patch into my dev fleet, and let you know if I
> notice any other bad behaviors.
>
I tested the patch you posted. While I never saw any dbus-requested scans
failing, I did notice an increase in the number of my dev units falling offline
after a reboot. In each case I've tested, as soon as dbus Scan() was
initiated, the previously associated network was seen and joined. While I
haven't looked for exactly where, I am guessing that there is some hole in the
connman startup logic where it needs to request a wpa_s Passive scan as well.
Perhaps it would be best to always follow an active scan with a passive one?
Or perhaps BackgroundScanning should just be forced to 'true'?
It seems that connman may be depending too much on somewhat undocumented
behaviors of wpa_supplicant and the cfg80211 driver layers, and it's being
exposed to these bugs.
I'm curious for your thoughts! For now, I'm reverting to BackgroundScanning =
true.
Best,
Jonah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/attachments/20170922/a848e5e0/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/connman
------------------------------
End of connman Digest, Vol 23, Issue 14
***************************************
