Return-path: Received: from xc.sipsolutions.net ([83.246.72.84]:37211 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753572AbYIOQFH (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:05:07 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Don't destroy authentication algorithm before authenticating. From: Johannes Berg To: Ortwin =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gl=FCck?= Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <48CE86B6.6080704@odi.ch> (sfid-20080915_180118_027162_C9C60EF5) References: <48CE8452.9080604@odi.ch> (sfid-20080915_175050_484202_3CD78757) <1221494039.3700.47.camel@johannes.berg> <48CE86B6.6080704@odi.ch> (sfid-20080915_180118_027162_C9C60EF5) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-96UDNvUfMB7gGwTmQxrG" Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:04:33 +0200 Message-Id: <1221494673.3700.54.camel@johannes.berg> (sfid-20080915_180511_109727_E9560108) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-96UDNvUfMB7gGwTmQxrG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 18:00 +0200, Ortwin Gl=C3=BCck wrote: >=20 > Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 17:50 +0200, Ortwin Gl=C3=BCck wrote: > >> reset_auth is called before each authentication try. So it should not = destroy > >> the auth_alg that was set before. > >> > >> NB: this may have side-effects with automatic algorithm selection if A= P responds=20 > >> with alg not supported. > >=20 > > This seems entirely wrong. > >=20 > > Is your AP not capable of/configured to do open auth and _also_ doesn't > > reject the attempt? That is, the AP is just completely broken? >=20 > Well, I see that with other (binary) drivers it actively rejects such=20 > authentication attempts. But with this driver it doesnt. The only differe= nce=20 > that I can see from the packet logs is that mac80211 sends no probes befo= re the=20 > authentication, and that the sequence number is being reset. When's the sequence number reset? Which sequence number? > So maybe that keeps=20 > this Netgear AP (yes it's crap) from rejecting. Or then it's something in= ath9k=20 > that causes the AP not to receive the packets in the first place. That'd be weird. johannes --=-96UDNvUfMB7gGwTmQxrG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJIzoeNAAoJEKVg1VMiehFYBiYP/3lD5lnTkIVEkLUqDUlsi2hs 8atXKRCqHLyxokP8ISchR4DpVgwmuEd1pGaUyfDOQx2pEnqwmDV3xNxkfLNrDXRJ UVSJGHu8ts34nDvwPnUbwrXNfnVP+FymuRRDcmnk97UjAA2FgMWIoX3UOkDQL6nD 2k94E3kCyWi30OhMdUBozF2b6dOSpN4FquikkYGwhEEkVTUWYVscQCPWZ2UgDNLp 7XtmaVT9cWdAHcGlX4+DOvoXXQrR8hhfAVGAqf26eGcpAQh2NUjDyL67ZkAM6WXI 13Z3rr/ObxYnzshD/FIOza/yoEzjcTmP+LAIOHcdzTqTYgw6ZrhMgAoOySuQ+55i 21GhjgVNUSJujIfdXUIy2Z49YHX0q5aQ4zd4lpi/ipO8DjRZbcD4rfuu4pwGMew/ WuHtqYrvuC2Kpumu2U2rAZOq/QPhg7nrOQfAnSGaQY5ShjZ3eKOK2EADACLnb3Ow d+zOeXq6fpgphYxoJNKSVPYnaod98Wk9+U+HpscSgYTw/LeibMbdBTm62aBLX3Ir BnJTAHJG+JOraYdDWZ/DtAVoKx3gLJ02d/gctJLx3GFrWzW7smcE7sN/sq3Z0LQm rFI+stbgIrsOp8MtFPA2nSlkC1m6rYd39sMR5148c+HU7yHw0N64aB9SsvU0/gvr 3kxxTUgfNPujkFbKFn7u =Serc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-96UDNvUfMB7gGwTmQxrG--