Hi  Chun-Yeow,

I tried it without nohwcrypt=1 and still the same issue.

Fred

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Yeoh Chun-Yeow <[email protected]>wrote:

> Hi, Fred
>
> Using the latest compat-wireless, you can ignore the nohwcrypt=1 while
> loading ath5k.
>
> ---
> Chun-Yeow
>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:42 AM, fred veldini <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Ok I recompiled without the older patch and still have the same issues.
> >
> > I did try to create the mesh without authsae and everything works fine.
> >
> > Is there anything I can do to help identify the issue?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM, fred veldini <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I will try it and let you know, thanks for the quick reply.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Thomas Pedersen <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM, fred veldini <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Hello Group,
> >>> >
> >>> > I have been testing a multiple node mesh with ath5k and Authsae,
> >>> >
> >>> > We are working our way up to 15 units in a mesh to do some stress
> >>> > testing.
> >>> >
> >>> > We have run into a snag and not sure what to look at from here.
> >>> >
> >>> > We have latest Kernel 3.6 with latest Compat-wireless build
> >>> > We have the latest iw and authsae from GIT
> >>> >
> >>> > Everything comes up and on-line with out any problem initially.
> >>> >
> >>> > The issue we see is that some units, (Not all of them and not all the
> >>> > same
> >>> > units) will show
> >>> >
> >>> > NL80211_CMD_NEW_PEER_CANDIDATE(1349901686.331237)
> >>> > new unauthed sta (seq num=1349901526)
> >>> > NL80211_CMD_NEW_STATION (1349901686.331237)
> >>> > NL80211_CMD_NEW_PEER_CANDIDATE(1349901701.695901)
> >>> > new unauthed sta (seq num=1349901527)
> >>> > NL80211_CMD_NEW_STATION (1349901701.696901)
> >>> > NL80211_CMD_NEW_PEER_CANDIDATE(1349901717.61565)
> >>> > new unauthed sta (seq num=1349901528)
> >>> > NL80211_CMD_NEW_STATION (1349901717.61565)
> >>> > NL80211_CMD_NEW_PEER_CANDIDATE(1349901732.426229)
> >>> > new unauthed sta (seq num=1349901529)
> >>> > NL80211_CMD_NEW_STATION (1349901732.426229)
> >>> > NL80211_CMD_NEW_PEER_CANDIDATE(1349901747.790893)
> >>> > new unauthed sta (seq num=1349901530)
> >>> > NL80211_CMD_NEW_STATION (1349901747.791893)
> >>> > NL80211_CMD_NEW_PEER_CANDIDATE(1349901762.131713)
> >>> > new unauthed sta (seq num=1349901531)
> >>> > NL80211_CMD_NEW_STATION (1349901762.131713)
> >>> >
> >>> > If I do a iw dev mesh2 station dump I see
> >>> > iw dev mesh2 station dump
> >>> > Station 00:15:6d:94:4f:76 (on mesh2)
> >>> >     inactive time:    545 ms
> >>> >     rx bytes:    800
> >>> >     rx packets:    16
> >>> >     tx bytes:    0
> >>> >     tx packets:    0
> >>> >     tx retries:    0
> >>> >     tx failed:    0
> >>> >     signal:      -30 dBm
> >>> >     signal avg:    -30 dBm
> >>> >     Toffset:    10133145424 us
> >>> >     tx bitrate:    1.0 MBit/s
> >>> >     mesh llid:    0
> >>> >     mesh plid:    0
> >>> >     mesh plink:    LISTEN ------  LISTEN STATE COULD BE ATTRIBUTED BY
> >>> > NO
> >>> > MFP?
> >>> >     authorized:    no
> >>> >     authenticated:    no
> >>> >     preamble:    long
> >>> >     WMM/WME:    yes
> >>> >     MFP:        no  -------  NOTICE NO MFP
> >>> >     TDLS peer:        no
> >>> > Station 00:15:6d:94:5a:39 (on mesh2)
> >>> >     inactive time:    17702 ms
> >>> >     rx bytes:    1539
> >>> >     rx packets:    23
> >>> >     tx bytes:    1090
> >>> >     tx packets:    7
> >>> >     tx retries:    6
> >>> >     tx failed:    1
> >>> >     signal:      -62 dBm
> >>> >     signal avg:    -61 dBm
> >>> >     tx bitrate:    1.0 MBit/s
> >>> >     mesh llid:    0
> >>> >     mesh plid:    0
> >>> >     mesh plink:    ESTAB
> >>> >     authorized:    yes
> >>> >     authenticated:    yes
> >>> >     preamble:    long
> >>> >     WMM/WME:    yes
> >>> >     MFP:        yes
> >>> >     TDLS peer:        no
> >>> > Station 00:15:6d:94:6e:6b (on mesh2)
> >>> >     inactive time:    721 ms
> >>> >     rx bytes:    544314
> >>> >     rx packets:    6054
> >>> >     tx bytes:    254624
> >>> >     tx packets:    883
> >>> >     tx retries:    58
> >>> >     tx failed:    0
> >>> >     signal:      -46 dBm
> >>> >     signal avg:    -46 dBm
> >>> >     Toffset:    490313930 us
> >>> >     tx bitrate:    54.0 MBit/s
> >>> >     mesh llid:    0
> >>> >     mesh plid:    0
> >>> >     mesh plink:    ESTAB
> >>> >     authorized:    yes
> >>> >     authenticated:    yes
> >>> >     preamble:    long
> >>> >     WMM/WME:    yes
> >>> >     MFP:        yes
> >>> >     TDLS peer:        no
> >>> >
> >>> > If I reboot the routers the same thing happens.
> >>> > I have tried with and without nohwencrypt=1
> >>> > I have also applied the patch
> >>> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg95993.html which was
> >>> > missing
> >>> > for the latest build
> >>> > any help on what to look for would be appreciated.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> I think this patch: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1429831/ was
> >>> meant to replace the one you applied. Can you try without Chun-Yeow's
> >>> original mgmt frame encryption patch for ath5k?
> >>>
> >>> Thomas
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Devel mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> http://lists.open80211s.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devel mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.open80211s.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.open80211s.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.open80211s.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Reply via email to