Return-path: Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.174]:62714 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753442AbYEFMKy (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 08:10:54 -0400 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so1543465wfd.4 for ; Tue, 06 May 2008 05:10:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: (sfid-20080506_141021_214332_B7D83202) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 14:10:54 +0200 From: drago01 To: "Emmanuel Grumbach" Subject: Re: dynamic wep with mulitple keys Cc: "Volker Braun" , "Tomas Winkler" , "Linux Wireless" In-Reply-To: <8704f27d0805060032g2312e7dcwc19f382c431e6cd3@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <1208969544.3312.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1ba2fa240804231015r41e7d7f5ocf7d78af72fb4622@mail.gmail.com> <8704f27d0805050735s647ac4aaq469630bde6bc341e@mail.gmail.com> <1210003121.11809.10.camel@carrot.hep.upenn.edu> <8704f27d0805052346u24954211l6f55513c78205586@mail.gmail.com> <8704f27d0805060032g2312e7dcwc19f382c431e6cd3@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote: > > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:22 AM, drago01 wrote: > > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote: > > > > I just tried compat-wireless-2008-05-05, which does contain > > > > 03dcb07e74a62eec2badb9f6a091790c484f4a6c. No difference: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for trying this. > > > Can you try to load the module with swcrypto=1 and try again ? > > > This disables the HW encryption acceleration. Trying this will allow > > > to make 100% sure that the bug is in iwlwifi. The bug is likely to be > > > there, but I think it is worth to make this 100% sure. > > > > Well it happens for me with iwl3945 which uses swcrypto by default see: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=120699235803881&w=2 > > > > Actually, I made quite a lot of changes in security in iwl4965 that > are not in iwl3945 so I think it is worth trying with iwl4965 in SW. > The security code is not the same between 3945 and 4965 OK, are you planning to port this changes/fixes to 3945 ?