All of
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marek Vasut <>
To: Martin Fuzzey <>,
Cc: Angus Ainslie <>,
	"David S . Miller" <>,
	Jakub Kicinski <>,
	Kalle Valo <>,
	Lee Jones <>,
	Martin Kepplinger <>,
	Sebastian Krzyszkowiak <>,
	Siva Rebbagondla <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rsi: Fix TX EAPOL packet handling against iwlwifi AP
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 19:07:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 5/27/21 6:52 PM, Martin Fuzzey wrote:
> Hi Marek,


> I've just run into the same problem (on -5.4) and found your (now 
> merged) patch

The patch should already be part of 5.4.y, no ?

> On 15/10/2020 13:16, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> In case RSI9116 SDIO WiFi operates in STA mode against Intel 9260 in 
>> AP mode,
>> the association fails. The former is using wpa_supplicant during 
>> association,
>> the later is set up using hostapd:
>> iwl$ cat hostapd.conf
>> interface=wlp1s0
>> ssid=test
>> country_code=DE
>> hw_mode=g
>> channel=1
>> wpa=2
>> wpa_passphrase=test
>> wpa_key_mgmt=WPA-PSK
>> iwl$ hostapd -d hostapd.conf
>> rsi$ wpa_supplicant -i wlan0 -c <(wpa_passphrase test test)
>> The problem is that the TX EAPOL data descriptor 
>> flag and extended descriptor EAPOL4_CONFIRM frame type are not set in 
>> case the
>> AP is iwlwifi, because in that case the TX EAPOL packet is 2 bytes 
>> shorter.
>> The downstream vendor driver has this change in place already [1], 
>> however
>> there is no explanation for it, neither is there any commit history 
>> from which
>> such explanation could be obtained.
> I get this using 2 RSI9116 s, for both AP and STA using hostapd.

Do I understand it correctly that two RSI9116 did not even work against 
one another as STA and AP respectively ? Sigh ...

> Comparing packet captures in the working and non working (without your 
> patch) case shows that
> the working case has a 802.11 QOS header whereas the non working case 
> does not, hence the 2 byte difference.
> The size of the EAPOL data is the same, it's the previous header that 
> causes the problem...
> This whole use the message size to determine the messages to ACK seems 
> very fragile...

I'm not surprised, the quality of this driver is low and the 
documentation is lacking. Thanks for clarifying.

Do you think you can write and submit a patch which would fix this in a 
better way?

      reply	other threads:[~2021-05-27 17:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-15 11:16 [PATCH] rsi: Fix TX EAPOL packet handling against iwlwifi AP Marek Vasut
2020-11-07 11:32 ` Kalle Valo
2021-05-27 16:52 ` Martin Fuzzey
2021-05-27 17:07   ` Marek Vasut [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.