Re: Monitor-while-operating bug in b43: WEP-encrypted packets are received in decrypted form on the monitor interface
On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 21:38 +0200, Stefanik Gábor wrote: > I don't think that we should require turning off hardware cryptography > for doing this - one might want to use a managed interface with > hardware cryptography enabled (less code overhead), while getting a > truely-raw dump on a monitor interface simultaneously. This is useful > for wireless IDS, for example. Sure, would be great. Go implement it. Might need hardware changes. And think about it first maybe. johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: Monitor-while-operating bug in b43: WEP-encrypted packets are received in decrypted form on the monitor interface
On Friday 27 June 2008 21:27:47 Stefanik Gábor wrote: > However, I believe that a raw monitor mode > interface should pass the packets as they are received. and not in > decrypted form. Ehm, the hardware decrypts the frame before it arrives at the driver. So if you don't want hwcrypto, disable hwcrypto. See the module parameter. -- Greetings Michael. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: Monitor-while-operating bug in b43: WEP-encrypted packets are received in decrypted form on the monitor interface
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 19:19 +0200, Stefanik Gábor wrote: >> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Stefanik Gábor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > One day I was testing monitor-while-operating, with "wlan0" as the >> > managed interface and "rtap0" as the monitor one, and found an >> > interesting bug: when I am associated with an AP on wlan0, and try to >> > receive the same AP's packets through the monitor interface, the >> > packets arrive in decrypted form, but with the WEP bit still set. This >> > appears to be a HW-crypto-related bug, though I haven't tested with HW >> > crypto off. What can cause such a bug? > >> Could someone investigate this? I first posted this a month ago, and >> noone really did anything about it. > > It's not a bug, it's a feature. Turn off hardware encryption if it > bothers you. > > johannes > I don't think that we should require turning off hardware cryptography for doing this - one might want to use a managed interface with hardware cryptography enabled (less code overhead), while getting a truely-raw dump on a monitor interface simultaneously. This is useful for wireless IDS, for example. -- Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-) ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: Monitor-while-operating bug in b43: WEP-encrypted packets are received in decrypted form on the monitor interface
On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 19:19 +0200, Stefanik Gábor wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Stefanik Gábor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > One day I was testing monitor-while-operating, with "wlan0" as the > > managed interface and "rtap0" as the monitor one, and found an > > interesting bug: when I am associated with an AP on wlan0, and try to > > receive the same AP's packets through the monitor interface, the > > packets arrive in decrypted form, but with the WEP bit still set. This > > appears to be a HW-crypto-related bug, though I haven't tested with HW > > crypto off. What can cause such a bug? > Could someone investigate this? I first posted this a month ago, and > noone really did anything about it. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Turn off hardware encryption if it bothers you. johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: Monitor-while-operating bug in b43: WEP-encrypted packets are received in decrypted form on the monitor interface
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 27 June 2008 19:19:41 Stefanik Gábor wrote: >> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Stefanik Gábor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > One day I was testing monitor-while-operating, with "wlan0" as the >> > managed interface and "rtap0" as the monitor one, and found an >> > interesting bug: when I am associated with an AP on wlan0, and try to >> > receive the same AP's packets through the monitor interface, the >> > packets arrive in decrypted form, but with the WEP bit still set. This >> > appears to be a HW-crypto-related bug, though I haven't tested with HW >> > crypto off. What can cause such a bug? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Gábor >> > >> > -- >> > Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-) >> > >> >> Could someone investigate this? I first posted this a month ago, and >> noone really did anything about it. > > I'm sorry, we cannot reproduce this bug. > I'm also unsure how hwcrypto could break here. The driver/firmware doesn't > even know about whether there's a monitor interface in addition to the > STA interface. The firmware simply decrypts the packet or it doesn't. > If the firmware does decrypt, the driver will clear the protected bit. > If it doesn't decrypt, the driver won't clear the bit. > > I guess you need to debug this by yourself, if you can still reproduce > the bug. see drivers/net/b43/xmit.c for the b43_rx function. You can add > a few sanity checks there. If you don't find a bug here, go up to the > mac80211 stack. > > -- > Greetings Michael. > Hmm... I re-checked, and now it appears that the packets are now passed with the protected bit set correctly, but still they arrive decrypted. Trying to transmit an already-encrypted frame results in it being double-encrypted. However, I believe that a raw monitor mode interface should pass the packets as they are received. and not in decrypted form. -- Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-) ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: Monitor-while-operating bug in b43: WEP-encrypted packets are received in decrypted form on the monitor interface
On Friday 27 June 2008 19:19:41 Stefanik Gábor wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Stefanik Gábor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > One day I was testing monitor-while-operating, with "wlan0" as the > > managed interface and "rtap0" as the monitor one, and found an > > interesting bug: when I am associated with an AP on wlan0, and try to > > receive the same AP's packets through the monitor interface, the > > packets arrive in decrypted form, but with the WEP bit still set. This > > appears to be a HW-crypto-related bug, though I haven't tested with HW > > crypto off. What can cause such a bug? > > > > Thanks, > > Gábor > > > > -- > > Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-) > > > > Could someone investigate this? I first posted this a month ago, and > noone really did anything about it. I'm sorry, we cannot reproduce this bug. I'm also unsure how hwcrypto could break here. The driver/firmware doesn't even know about whether there's a monitor interface in addition to the STA interface. The firmware simply decrypts the packet or it doesn't. If the firmware does decrypt, the driver will clear the protected bit. If it doesn't decrypt, the driver won't clear the bit. I guess you need to debug this by yourself, if you can still reproduce the bug. see drivers/net/b43/xmit.c for the b43_rx function. You can add a few sanity checks there. If you don't find a bug here, go up to the mac80211 stack. -- Greetings Michael. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: More discrepancies in ssb-sprom
On Jun 27, 2008, at 14:37 PM, Richard Jonsson wrote: You should really take Ehuds advice, Dale. But I fear you can't because you really must have the last word, don't you? I'm sorry it's hard to take advice from a putz and so far that is the opinion I've reached based on my interaction with him. Since you pissed off everyone who could possibly help you out, you don't have anything to gain from staying here. Now I've pissed off everyone who can help me??? I think you are mistaken, this is not about helping me, this is about fixing the ssb-sprom program, something that everyone seems to have lost sight of or don't care about. I suggest you re-read this discussion and figure out why you get the replies you get. Re-reading his drivel doesn't sound productive. I guess you're welcome back when you've learned to behave and keep a decent discussion level. I wasn't aware you were authoritative around here??? I also wasn't aware I needed to go anywhere, as I said, I want to discuss fixing the ssb-sprom program but so far those who have responded would rather discuss bullshit and stupidity so jump on them. As far as ehud goes, he should have just kept his mouth shut but obviously, it's something he was incapable of. Until then, Richard -- Dale PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: More discrepancies in ssb-sprom
On Jun 27, 2008, at 14:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dale Walsh wrote: Now it's an issue of literacy??? I don't know when you became illiterate. I only noticed it in the previous posting. What a putz you are, looking for something, anything to make you feel better than everyone else by giving you something to complain about, I could care less if it's "your" or "you're" as long as you shut up, get a life dude. Calling people idiots, turds, and putzes does not appear to be effective in making friends or influencing people. If you had kept your mouth shut in the first place then this conversation wouldn't be happening, you really need to get laid As you can tell from your posts of 06/05, 06/06, 06/08, 06/11, 06/19, 06/21, 06/23, 06/25, and today, there IS NO CONVERSATION HAPPENING. It has nothing to do with my sex life, because you see, Dale, nobody loves you. Again, if you want to see the illiterate idiot putz who needs to get laid and step off -- look in the mirror. Nothing to see here. Move along now. Man, you just have to be a total idiot, I guess it's better if I just ignore you cause you obviously can't contribute in a meaningful manner from what I've seen so far. Ehud -- Dale PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: More discrepancies in ssb-sprom
You should really take Ehuds advice, Dale. But I fear you can't because you really must have the last word, don't you? Since you pissed off everyone who could possibly help you out, you don't have anything to gain from staying here. I suggest you re-read this discussion and figure out why you get the replies you get. I guess you're welcome back when you've learned to behave and keep a decent discussion level. Until then, Richard ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: More discrepancies in ssb-sprom
Dale Walsh wrote: > Now it's an issue of literacy??? I don't know when you became illiterate. I only noticed it in the previous posting. > > What a putz you are, looking for something, anything to make you feel > better than everyone else by giving you something to complain about, I > could care less if it's "your" or "you're" as long as you shut up, get > a life dude. Calling people idiots, turds, and putzes does not appear to be effective in making friends or influencing people. > If you had kept your mouth shut in the first place then this > conversation wouldn't be happening, you really need to get laid As you can tell from your posts of 06/05, 06/06, 06/08, 06/11, 06/19, 06/21, 06/23, 06/25, and today, there IS NO CONVERSATION HAPPENING. It has nothing to do with my sex life, because you see, Dale, nobody loves you. Again, if you want to see the illiterate idiot putz who needs to get laid and step off -- look in the mirror. Nothing to see here. Move along now. Ehud ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: More discrepancies in ssb-sprom
On Jun 27, 2008, at 13:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dale this is not a flame-war list or a place to show your illiteracy. Step off. Dale Walsh wrote: On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Ehud Gavron wrote: ... What is your problem, maybe you should up your medication!!! I can't find you listed as a licensed physician. Are you dispensing medical advice without a license? The fact that you make this response shows your not very bright, *LOL* Did you mean "You're" not very bright, because then "you're" right. If you meant "your not very bright" then perhaps remedial first grade English would be called for. I don't know -- English is my second language. I'm not interested in a "high" and "mightier than thou" attitude of turds like you when your response doesn't contribute to anything positive. Calling people idiots and then turds is further evidence that you need to MOVE ALONG NOW. Step off, eh. You must be a moron to continue to pursue this conversation. Is everyone on this list a moron Yes, we're all morons. You're the genius. Go to bcm43xx- [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, only you are a moron as far as I can tell. ... I'll wait for someone intelligent to offer something of value Apparently your four postings over several weeks have gained you none of that. Step off, eh. -- Dale Perhaps instead of prescribing medications, calling people idiots and turds, and saying nothing of intelligence is being presented you should take a deep breath (go ahead, really), try not to be illiterate (you know, "your" vs "you're", "it's" vs "its" and so on), and MOVE ALONG. Now it's an issue of literacy??? What a putz you are, looking for something, anything to make you feel better than everyone else by giving you something to complain about, I could care less if it's "your" or "you're" as long as you shut up, get a life dude. In case the message was unclear, let me assure you in the friendliest way, Step off, eh. What is your problem??? Don't you have any more intelligence than what you have displayed??? Why don't you step off. If you had kept your mouth shut in the first place then this conversation wouldn't be happening, you really need to get laid Ehud -- Dale PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: More discrepancies in ssb-sprom
Dale this is not a flame-war list or a place to show your illiteracy. Step off. Dale Walsh wrote: > > On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Ehud Gavron wrote: ... > What is your problem, maybe you should up your medication!!! I can't find you listed as a licensed physician. Are you dispensing medical advice without a license? > The fact that you make this response shows your not very bright, *LOL* Did you mean "You're" not very bright, because then "you're" right. If you meant "your not very bright" then perhaps remedial first grade English would be called for. I don't know -- English is my second language. > I'm not interested in a "high" and "mightier than thou" attitude of > turds like you when your response doesn't contribute to anything positive. Calling people idiots and then turds is further evidence that you need to MOVE ALONG NOW. Step off, eh. > > Is everyone on this list a moron Yes, we're all morons. You're the genius. Go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ... > I'll wait for someone intelligent to offer something of value Apparently your four postings over several weeks have gained you none of that. Step off, eh. > -- Dale > Perhaps instead of prescribing medications, calling people idiots and turds, and saying nothing of intelligence is being presented you should take a deep breath (go ahead, really), try not to be illiterate (you know, "your" vs "you're", "it's" vs "its" and so on), and MOVE ALONG. In case the message was unclear, let me assure you in the friendliest way, Step off, eh. Ehud ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: More discrepancies in ssb-sprom
On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Ehud Gavron wrote: Dale Walsh wrote: ... And in my opinion this comment makes you look like an idiot. And now that you're resorting to calling list members idiots this is your opportunity for a time-out. Go stand in the corner, post on this list no more, and stop lowering the S/N ratio. The idiot is the one staring at you from the mirror. ... I could really care less about what you do... Clearly you don't care about people here. This is reason number two for you to MOVE ALONG NOW. ... Discussing anything with me ... is a complete waste of time ... Yes, it is. So go sit in the corner, or move on. No need to reply. You've already called us idiots and told us you don't care and that discussing things with you is a waste of time. I'm just offering friendly advice. What is your problem, maybe you should up your medication!!! The fact that you make this response shows your not very bright, I'm not interested in a "high" and "mightier than thou" attitude of turds like you when your response doesn't contribute to anything positive. Is everyone on this list a moron who has nothing better to do than attack another list member who is trying to instigate advancement and corrections or are there some who can contribute in a positive way without attacking another??? No need to respond to that, I don't believe everyone on this list is an idiot. No need for you to respond at all, I'll wait for someone intelligent to offer something of value while anyone else who doesn't have anything positive to add to this thread and does will only be demonstrating their lack of intelligence. At this time yes, if you respond to this thread with anything that does not contribute to fixing the ssb-sprom program you will be seen as an idiot and an instigator. Ehud -- Dale PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: Monitor-while-operating bug in b43: WEP-encrypted packets are received in decrypted form on the monitor interface
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Stefanik Gábor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > One day I was testing monitor-while-operating, with "wlan0" as the > managed interface and "rtap0" as the monitor one, and found an > interesting bug: when I am associated with an AP on wlan0, and try to > receive the same AP's packets through the monitor interface, the > packets arrive in decrypted form, but with the WEP bit still set. This > appears to be a HW-crypto-related bug, though I haven't tested with HW > crypto off. What can cause such a bug? > > Thanks, > Gábor > > -- > Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-) > Could someone investigate this? I first posted this a month ago, and noone really did anything about it. (CCing Johannes Berg.) -- Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-) ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: More discrepancies in ssb-sprom
Dale Walsh wrote: > ... > And in my opinion this comment makes you look like an idiot. And now that you're resorting to calling list members idiots this is your opportunity for a time-out. Go stand in the corner, post on this list no more, and stop lowering the S/N ratio. The idiot is the one staring at you from the mirror. > ... > I could really care less about what you do... Clearly you don't care about people here. This is reason number two for you to MOVE ALONG NOW. > ... > Discussing anything with me ... is a complete waste of time ... Yes, it is. So go sit in the corner, or move on. No need to reply. You've already called us idiots and told us you don't care and that discussing things with you is a waste of time. I'm just offering friendly advice. Ehud ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: More discrepancies in ssb-sprom
On Jun 27, 2008, at 08:47 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: On Friday 27 June 2008, Dale Walsh wrote: On Jun 27, 2008, at 05:57 AM, Michael Buesch wrote: On Friday 27 June 2008 10:40:39 Dale Walsh wrote: [...] You're making a fool out of yourself. I am ??? Yes. And in my opinion this comment makes you look like an idiot. You have absolutely no clue about the meaning of the values in the sprom. You're probably correct because I can't find any concrete description of the data other than what you claim it to possibly be. That is because the FCC (and most regulatory agencies) is paranoid about just anybody turning these things up to illegal output values, so it is they who have put the shroud of secrecy about this stuff, which many of them can do since the chipsets are not US specific, but largely universal as other places allow more power output and somewhat different band usage limits & channel assignments. The fact that this suits Broadcoms business model is just icing on the cake for their legal staff. I don't want to increase it to an illegal level or blindly make changes with throughly testing the effects of the changes to ensure they are optimum settings and still within legal levels. In my dealings with Broadcom, I'm told that receiver gain and transmit power are controllable but they do not release the information so I have to go by the information I can find which is minimal and it's accuracy is questionable. But please try to increase the value by 1 or 2 dBi. You will see what happens. But please don't explain the result with any weird clipping theory or whatever. I'd love to test changes however the program is broken and this is what I have been writing about, if you have already performed similar test why not publish the results of your tests? Now, can we get back to the discussion of fixing the application? Possibly, provided your sidewalk superintending is just that. As a broadcast engineer with nearly 60 years of steering electrons in ways to make them do useful work, I think Michael has a better understanding of what it is that he is slowly discovering and making work than someone who just walked in the door. Even with my experience, I wouldn't pretend to think I can tell Micheal or Larry what to do, so why should you be capable of doing that with maybe a month of observation? Sidewalk superintending??? What you do has nothing to do with fixing the program and I could really care less about what you do, as I have been saying, it's broken so lets fix it. I'm not telling him to do anything, when the program works properly I will conduct tests and draw conclusions based on the results, make the results available to others but I certainly wont do it with a broken program. At this time there is no certainty that he has decoded the data properly because there is no manufacturing documentation I can find that outlines the data, only a very good possibility that he has decoded it properly and this is what I am counting on. Regardless of anything I want to do to a card, the program needs to be fixed and the focus is being sidetracked by chatter of licenses and books about antennas which have nothing to do with the ssb-sprom program working. Discussing anything with me other than fixing the program is a complete waste of time yet people are hell-bent on sidetracking the fixing of the program, draw whatever conclusion you want from it, unless you have something of value to add towards fixing the program your comments have no value. We can sit here in a pissing contest and the ruffling of feathers about bullshit and stupidity for months to come and it wont change the fact that the application is broken and needs to be fixed, if you don't wish to contribute to fixing it then I suggest you let someone who does intervene and let the focus return to fixing the program. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Having nothing, nothing can he lose. -- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI" ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev -- Dale PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: More discrepancies in ssb-sprom
On Friday 27 June 2008, Dale Walsh wrote: >On Jun 27, 2008, at 05:57 AM, Michael Buesch wrote: >> On Friday 27 June 2008 10:40:39 Dale Walsh wrote: [...] >> You're making a fool out of yourself. > >I am ??? Yes. >> You have absolutely no clue about the meaning of the values in the >> sprom. > >You're probably correct because I can't find any concrete description >of the data other than what you claim it to possibly be. That is because the FCC (and most regulatory agencies) is paranoid about just anybody turning these things up to illegal output values, so it is they who have put the shroud of secrecy about this stuff, which many of them can do since the chipsets are not US specific, but largely universal as other places allow more power output and somewhat different band usage limits & channel assignments. The fact that this suits Broadcoms business model is just icing on the cake for their legal staff. >In my dealings with Broadcom, I'm told that receiver gain and >transmit power are controllable but they do not release the >information so I have to go by the information I can find which is >minimal and it's accuracy is questionable. > >> But please try to increase the value by 1 or 2 dBi. You will see what >> happens. But please don't explain the result with any weird clipping >> theory or whatever. > >I'd love to test changes however the program is broken and this is >what I have been writing about, if you have already performed similar >test why not publish the results of your tests? > >Now, can we get back to the discussion of fixing the application? Possibly, provided your sidewalk superintending is just that. As a broadcast engineer with nearly 60 years of steering electrons in ways to make them do useful work, I think Michael has a better understanding of what it is that he is slowly discovering and making work than someone who just walked in the door. Even with my experience, I wouldn't pretend to think I can tell Micheal or Larry what to do, so why should you be capable of doing that with maybe a month of observation? -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Having nothing, nothing can he lose. -- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI" ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: More discrepancies in ssb-sprom
On Jun 27, 2008, at 05:57 AM, Michael Buesch wrote: On Friday 27 June 2008 10:40:39 Dale Walsh wrote: A 1db or 2db increase in input sensitivity is probably more than enough to improve a cards performance if it lacks it and can compensate for design changes in poorly designed cards, a 10db increase is essentially an increase of 1000% which makes a 500mw signal look like a 5watt signal, this also increases the generated harmonics, the 3rd order harmonics being the most damaging since very little filtering is included in wlan cards. Go read the b43 device specifications, please. If it's relevant I'll read it, have a link to the specifications because a serach of "b43 device specifications" does not reveal any specifications? You're making a fool out of yourself. I am ??? You have absolutely no clue about the meaning of the values in the sprom. You're probably correct because I can't find any concrete description of the data other than what you claim it to possibly be. In my dealings with Broadcom, I'm told that receiver gain and transmit power are controllable but they do not release the information so I have to go by the information I can find which is minimal and it's accuracy is questionable. But please try to increase the value by 1 or 2 dBi. You will see what happens. But please don't explain the result with any weird clipping theory or whatever. I'd love to test changes however the program is broken and this is what I have been writing about, if you have already performed similar test why not publish the results of your tests? Now, can we get back to the discussion of fixing the application? -- Greetings Michael. -- Dale PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: More discrepancies in ssb-sprom
On Friday 27 June 2008 10:40:39 Dale Walsh wrote: > A 1db or 2db increase in input sensitivity is probably more than > enough to improve a cards performance if it lacks it and can > compensate for design changes in poorly designed cards, a 10db > increase is essentially an increase of 1000% which makes a 500mw > signal look like a 5watt signal, this also increases the generated > harmonics, the 3rd order harmonics being the most damaging since very > little filtering is included in wlan cards. Go read the b43 device specifications, please. You're making a fool out of yourself. You have absolutely no clue about the meaning of the values in the sprom. But please try to increase the value by 1 or 2 dBi. You will see what happens. But please don't explain the result with any weird clipping theory or whatever. -- Greetings Michael. ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
Re: More discrepancies in ssb-sprom
On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Michael Buesch wrote: On Thursday 26 June 2008 03:00:58 Dale Walsh wrote: ssb-sprom -i minipci_sprom -o minipci_new_sprom --antgbg 0x88 So you seriously think that increasing the antenna gain value in the sprom by about 34 dBi is doing any good? Who in their right mind would attempt a 34dbi increase? The quoted command above, which changes the antenna gain by about 33.5dBi, is a quote from your mail that explains the ssb-sprom bug. That was an example valse I used so I could easily see what was modified, making a change of +0x01 or -0x01 means you have to look hard to see what changes to ensure it is the correct byte, at this time I'm working from a file and want to be sure that whatever is modified in the file is correct and currently it is not. Most cards shouldn't need to be tweaked at all while others might require a minor increase or decrease to improve performance, this is all I am after. An increase of this magnitude is not a wise increase considering that an increase of 10dbi is a signal gain of 1000 times of all the ambiants (including noise). An increase of 1-3dbi should make a difference and it might need a decrease rather than an increase, I'm talking about performance tuning, not going nuts with an increase so strong that the noise level becomes so overwhelming that there is no way the signal would not be drowned out. You should seriously go to a good bookstore and buy a book that explains what an "antenna gain" is. However, as an alternative you can simply increase the antenna gain value of one of your cards by 3dBi. You'll notice what happens then. You'll probably be surprised. :) (However, you'll probably explain the results of the test with your weird noise theories. hm...) Weird noise theory, maybe reading a book on RF theory might help you to understand about noise and the S/N ratio and how the noise can affect superimposed modulation and frequency shifting which is the principal of wlan cards, wireless routers and AP's. When you increase input sensitivity it does not just increase the sensitivity for the signal, it also increases sensitivity to everything which includes white noise. You are implying that there is no white noise and this white noise does not affect the signal and that just isn't true. The receiver portion of most lan card is PLL based with a clipping circuit to prevent the input signal from over saturating the the first stage of the receiver and causing damage, increasing input sensitivity beyond this level does not increase the signal past the clipped level but it does allow the level of the noise to reach this same level if sensitivity is turned up significantly. A 1db or 2db increase in input sensitivity is probably more than enough to improve a cards performance if it lacks it and can compensate for design changes in poorly designed cards, a 10db increase is essentially an increase of 1000% which makes a 500mw signal look like a 5watt signal, this also increases the generated harmonics, the 3rd order harmonics being the most damaging since very little filtering is included in wlan cards. We are now discussing RF fundamentals and we should be discussing the application which is what I originally was writing about, if you wish to continue a discussion about RF principals I would be more than happy to discuss this off list since it does not apply to fixing the ssb-sprom application. -- Greetings Michael. -- Dale PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
