On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:30 -0200, Thomas M Steenholdt wrote: > Dan Williams wrote: > > > > So the problem with this patch is that it doesn't actually take account > > of what AP_SCAN values actually do... That said, AP_SCAN is _horrible_ > > and reflects wpa_supplicant assuming too much about what it should be > > doing. > > > .. snip .. > > > > 1 means wpa_supplicant scans around and tries to find the AP. But if > > the AP is "hidden", wpa_supplicant won't find it because wpa_supplicant > > doesn't know how to find hidden APs. NM works around that by caching > > the BSSID after a successful connection, and when it finds that BSSID in > > scan results, filling in the SSID. > > > > 2 means NM must fill out the config for the network completely, and > > wpa_supplicant just blows those settings to the card and waits for the > > association to succeed. This is most closely analogous to a lot of > > 'iwconfig' commands. Only in this mode can wpa_supplicant really > > connect to a hidden network, because NM would have given wpa_supplicant > > both SSID and BSSID. > > > > So it's understandable why wpa_supplicant doesn't set the SSID on the > > card when you give it AP_SCAN=1, because it can't _find_ that SSID in > > scan results precisely because the SSID isn't broadcasting it's SSID. > > > > In this case I'd more suspect driver issues. Or, you could try a > > straight wpa_supplicant configuration with both AP_SCAN=1 and AP_SCAN=2 > > and see which one works, without NM in the picture. > > > > Dan > > > > As I mentiond, plain wpa_supplicant, iwconfig works fine for me. In my > wpa_supplicant.conf i don't even have an AP_SCAN option and as I see it, > wpa_supplicant uses a default of 1 in that case. I could be mistaken here.
Can you post the output of wpa_supplicant with the "-ddd" option please? I'd love to see _why_ it works for you with a hidden network, because it likely shouldn't. dan > NM uses AP_SCAN 2 for all hidden networks. If NM needs to fill in all > the info, including BSSID, for wpa_supplicant, then that's probably > exactly what fails. John W. Linville pointed out that there are some > issues with mac80211 pre-authentication scanning, making it unable to > see hidden networks. > > AP_SCAN 2, in this case, just doesn't work (note: using my old 3945 > device, I haven't had any problems like this for a long time). So > whether You think that the patch ignores the purpose of the AP_SCAN > values, using 1 and an SSID push to device makes it work better here :). > > I'm not trying to "defend" the patch in any way, since it's clearly a > sort of "proof of concept" patch. It makes NM push AP_SCAN 1 to > wpa_supplicant and sets the SSID on the device in order to make the > association happen. As you point out, this is probably no the right(tm) > way to do this, but it makes wireless usable for me. AP_SCAN 1 also > seems less secure than 2, since it doesn't care about the BSSID to make > the association. > > The right way to fix the problem as I see it, would probably be to get > the mac80211 pre-auth scanning working properly. > > /Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > NetworkManager-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
