Hi, Fred

Can you please share with us what type of devices and boards that
running on your testbed.

----
Chun-Yeow

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:42 AM, fred veldini <[email protected]> wrote:
> That is correct
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Thomas Pedersen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:23 PM, fred veldini <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Maybe this will help
>> >
>> > I did a dmesg on the routers and have a bunch of these messages on the
>> > routers in LISTEN state
>>
>> Just to confirm: all neighbors toward the router in LISTEN show it as
>> LISTEN, right?
>>
>> > WARNING: at drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath5k/desc.c:272
>> > ath5k_hw_setup_4word_tx_desc+0x66/0x1a4 [ath5k]()
>> >
>> > They are only on the routers that are not connected.
>> >
>> > Fred
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:06 PM, fred veldini <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I just added another 2 nodes to the mesh and they are having random
>> >> issues
>> >> with LISTEN and no MFP
>> >>
>> >> So I have a total of 6 nodes online now.  With 4 ESTAB and the rest
>> >> LISTEN
>> >> and no MFP
>> >>
>> >> The funny thing is if I reboot all 6 routers they will randomly ESTAB
>> >> and
>> >> LISTEN.  Not like there is something to point at.
>> >>
>> >> I still get the same messages as below.
>> >>
>> >> Is there a way to identify what level of AUTHSAE is failing that I can
>> >> try?
>> >>
>> >> Fred
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:47 PM, fred veldini <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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