Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:64372 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933791Ab0J1Ugg (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:36:36 -0400 Received: by fxm16 with SMTP id 16so2343472fxm.19 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:36:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4CC9D50F.5070403@gmail.com> References: <4CC0D0F6.4080507@web.de> <201010260740.47692.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> <4CC93148.7090308@web.de> <201010281023.26957.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> <4CC9C9A4.2020802@web.de> <4CC9D50F.5070403@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:36:34 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [regression]AP with hostapd 0.7.3 can't receive packets beyond authentication (2.6.36, rt73usb) From: Ivo Van Doorn To: Gertjan van Wingerde Cc: Lee , Helmut Schaa , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi. On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote: > On 10/28/10 21:06, Lee wrote: >> On 28/10/10 10:23, Helmut Schaa wrote: >>> Am Donnerstag 28 Oktober 2010 schrieb Lee: >>>> On 26/10/10 07:40, Helmut Schaa wrote: >>>>> # tcpdump -i mon0 "ether src XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX" >>>>> >>>>> Do you see any frames from your specific client? >>>> >>>> Yes. I can see this: >>>> # tcpdump -i mon0 "ether host 00:1F:3B:79:41:6F" >>> [...] >>>> 10:10:03.013402 5.5 Mb/s 2462 MHz 11b -76dB signal antenna 1 [bit 14] Data IV: 14 Pad 20 KeyID 0 >>>> >>>> However, on wlan0 I don't see anything beyond the EAPOL packets. >>>> Temporarily turning off WPA encryption let me successfully connect to my AP. >>> >>> Aha, could you please try if loading rt73usb with nohwcrypt=1 helps? >>> >>> Helmut >> >> (argh, brown paper bag) >> >> I went through the compiled kernels again, and I've screwed up at the last >> commit while bisecting (Sorry, Helmut!). The first bad kernel is a commit >> later: >> >> # bad: [f1aa4c541e98afa8b770a75ccaa8504d0bff44a7] rt2x00: Write the BSSID to register when interface is added >> >> On the good side, I tested 2.6.36 with nohwcrypt=1, and it works. Yay! > > Hmm, the patch itself that seems to cause the badness doesn't look bad. > However, closer inspection shows that the intf->bssid field may be initialized incorrectly. > > I may be a long shot, but can you check if the attached patch helps? Good catch, but with this invalid copy, I would also expected random segfaults. But even if this doesn't fix the hostapd issue, I would be a valid bugfix anyway. ;) Ivo