Return-path: Received: from crystal.sipsolutions.net ([195.210.38.204]:56483 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755221AbYC0M7t (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:59:49 -0400 Subject: Re: hostapd with mac80211 and rt2500pci: hostapd doesn't receive clients EAPOL keys unless mon.wlan1 is promiscuous From: Johannes Berg To: Bas Hulsken Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1206557464.2844.3.camel@Bas> References: <1206271458.2902.27.camel@Bas> (sfid-20080323_113430_380950_98BCE00E) <1206274341.16475.185.camel@johannes.berg> <1206277237.2902.37.camel@Bas> <1206281653.2902.45.camel@Bas> <1206557464.2844.3.camel@Bas> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-1AB3PVRhnwJ9NQ+3isUg" Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:59:45 +0100 Message-Id: <1206622785.22530.36.camel@johannes.berg> (sfid-20080327_125951_759225_889177F9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-1AB3PVRhnwJ9NQ+3isUg Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bas, > don't mean to push you or anything, but I was wondering if you > overlooked my last mail. You asked me to add some printk's to the > rt2500pci driver to debug hostapd authentication failure. I did this, > and these are the results: Sorry. I'm sure I read it but I must have forgotten, thanks for the note. > rt2500pci MAC changed: 00:0c:f6:14:05:19 > rt2500pci filter_flags: 2 > rt2500pci MAC changed: 00:00:00:00:00:00 > rt2500pci MAC changed: 00:0c:f6:14:05:19 > rt2500pci MAC changed: 00:00:00:00:00:00 > rt2500pci MAC changed: 00:0c:f6:14:05:19 > rt2500pci filter_flags: 2 > rt2500pci filter_flags: 0 > rt2500pci MAC changed: 00:00:00:00:00:00 > rt2500pci MAC changed: 00:0c:f6:14:05:19 > rt2500pci filter_flags: 2 > ------------------------------------------------ > this is immediately on startup of hostapd, after that filter and MAC > remain unchanged (at least if my printk catches everything). That looks pretty much expected. > does this look ok to you? Does it explain why I can only receive EOPOL > keys when in promiscuous mode? Unfortunately not, it's a bit weird. I think I'll probably have to run it myself to figure it out and do captures on the various interfaces. johannes --=-1AB3PVRhnwJ9NQ+3isUg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIVAwUAR+uaQKVg1VMiehFYAQKoZg//T7Vkos1EwX5Qxxs+x5u+fazFZIxkcJJ4 UGuMyIBkTjAIUVmw7PvrnAm029QbFF1RTbW2nEslYSigxItZpzgRTzMxDHWP7rTw ZjJhFCL8RG007gep4TtowZ/QM1d2p+dFv4cTt7gC+qF8XF9cAqitdSHt5jK/7jmK j+RJWgsnA79VWnqk4jN5W12SYsteKAC8WwMvwsNF5RbXl2Sa0ppM2Z2vRwPRnaZy nGzSW1vZbm6ywsoQVs8fzSSMpsGs/50Jl6sEXxYJ/er33k0hZ2nCqDLx0vnqXqcO o2URGD7vTtwe+H+14Q1Q4NquU+uPZaeCsEjudZApq9cpJmMXDKU/veAWuEUxn34n J31zjZgNVGUupBNjam6eKk9A+ns5lgC0DHe73sB7eMCaKDob+VKRl1VjfMrR6N4P jbhcc3/xrTDKQgcToIjlKY/VSU6jfVwFS5V967kTEdCKe1d4kzJt4EDaN+PoE29W AOzix+iXOpd9EzOV2U9C8tjfEujWEiRes8oaisfk9WgHKgB1kZojmWnA6mEgY3x2 K8b9TNqgY7ZlSVA7pZUjuwkBUFsSoIXBEl/tt4CmwHEoCKolT41ypgpyli0jSArd z1XtlxH6SIoscmIg2wrWLiwQ5Y7RamTAqBoIHFwdt9U4n3GpQ0+sPLf4FxJYTucQ UYILNYPW7VQ= =1SXg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-1AB3PVRhnwJ9NQ+3isUg--