From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F333FC433E0 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:18:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C3D20825 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:18:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="mfYgUQme" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727787AbgHJRSP (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:18:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53042 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726720AbgHJRSO (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:18:14 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x430.google.com (mail-pf1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C0E1C061756 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x430.google.com with SMTP id f193so5839552pfa.12 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:18:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZfiSo/jR3N4STQphSoESnfgc2kvTu9hOFjYWtU62Gys=; b=mfYgUQmeS1apG1xzklxRkyRtc/i4/MrZj62qgnxL6aXaXj4IsJHW2154Oq42GjfRGI h95VBwrreL451G1UJ9lbUCLtA90Hbd8oqd2dLGgHTrVoN7yKufXMfr65x2ycblN6Cqjz /wd8j0WC6LVIIi3/lG07OqZ6eQM007kSGgpOldqc2ugozvew7eQnU2hzwFpDN2IecfAY /2YVhlbc52ADweswe0qvEfiJLYY2IA9MB05oo5XeQUpOuy3xhl3YWYyGaDAtYxBSu9SA YZj1BzT4yFSboXe550RvBPXRlhpndoV78pc1t1OhlcYyazqlxsVItj90Qj942TOfZFpp Nomw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZfiSo/jR3N4STQphSoESnfgc2kvTu9hOFjYWtU62Gys=; b=X4NMxCj2iSSSSXdjjwcDCg3kpVU28qfdiCqX5qm7Lb4dhicWSMJYKSr4OST0C7VIDY jhLG9EuDorTM+WgoEQM2Hj7B26MADwET+DyEpAIxw0LdfNLl6kCRNoC5pgO1TOnW0T8U Aa4zwBJ5jc/rMYaS2pX7yQdddCNv2QgwhHOGdVUkkMA0GpkHQ8MoWd48CO+78jPa+aaD zsEcD4jIJ3EH20nikzsheLzn7vp11UHFnreKDl0UV7e13bPBO5YSVwgrP3Jg3dvzwuoR jaNq0xo8tTquuX3KQz1SQ4Ea7P348FHAAr3fg7moWBNCYvA8oRhduD6iCm9FIampggMg XJ9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532QqWtz6mfTsFuaZfxKijh4JVZe06sw1liZr3J6sRbDtuy51VYU HL/8LFRzycvnoO8Qik1yxgFqsQD8 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz/Lgby04mcxfqg9vcuQRdONkJkwYAwAsVadzB1LiLh5Uv48234OvHAxB56og9s4lhJmf2PTQ== X-Received: by 2002:a65:60cb:: with SMTP id r11mr23171500pgv.131.1597079892968; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:18:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host-29.home (50-126-102-83.drr01.csby.or.frontiernet.net. [50.126.102.83]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t19sm24089002pfc.5.2020.08.10.10.17.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <28f1ab73ad2697578078e05cc40e9b29643d3470.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Lost beacon behavior changed as of 01afc6fed (hwsim) From: James Prestwood To: Johannes Berg , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:17:58 -0700 In-Reply-To: <65bbc2f69fe966d471eff3287a191919311ac641.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: (sfid-20200702_001244_354404_5FEC9FBA) <65bbc2f69fe966d471eff3287a191919311ac641.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.5 (3.32.5-1.fc30) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Hi, > > But I suspect that it could be that you're testing this in the wrong > way? From your description, it almost seems like you turn off the AP > interface, and roam after that? I'm not sure that's really realistic. Yes, your right. I guess we just got away with this since the behavior was different previously. > If > you wanted to test the "a few beacons were lost" behaviour, then > you'd > really have to lose a few beacons only (perhaps by adding something > to > wmediumd?), and not drop the AP off the air entirely. Yeah, I think this is what we will have to do. Target beacons specifically to block (and just a few) vs everything. > > If the AP is in fact completely unreachable, then I'm pretty sure > real > hardware will behave just like hwsim here, albeit perhaps a bit > slower, > though not by much. And then you'd have the same issue there. > > The fact that hwsim behaved differently would likely have been just a > timing thing - it didn't advertise REPORTS_TX_ACK_STATUS, so we'd > wait a > bit longer until deciding that the AP really was truly gone. If the > ACK > status is reported we just send a (few?) quick nullfunc(s) and decide > that very quickly. But that's independent on hwsim or real hardware. > > > johannes > Thanks, James