Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:55771 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756788Ab3HFWzf (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2013 18:55:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20130806215657.GA16410@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <1375816128.8219.28.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1375816715.8219.29.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <20130806213006.078C72210F@mail.nwl.cc> <1375825538.10459.1.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <20130806215657.GA16410@order.stressinduktion.org> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 00:55:33 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20130807_005538_498755_CDE11C74) Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 6 [ wireless | iwlwifi | mac80211 ? ] From: Sedat Dilek To: Johannes Berg , sedat.dilek@gmail.com, David Miller , Stephen Rothwell , wireless , netdev@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:45:38PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 23:40 +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> > > Does the problem occur on client or server side? AFAICT, hostapd as well >> > > as wpa_supplicant use AF_PACKET. >> > > >> > > The tricky thing is, these patches are meant to *loosen* the >> > > restrictions in af_packet.c, so *should* not be harmful. So either my >> > > patches create a side effect I did not foresee, or it's something nasty >> > > (too much delay introduced by calling eth_type_trans() or so). >> >> > By reverting the culprit commit my network/wifi is fine, again. >> > See also attached patch with changelog. >> >> I think skb->protocol is probably getting set up wrong, and just putting >> back the last two lines >> >> skb->protocol = proto; >> skb->dev = dev; >> >> is probably sufficient to fix wifi. If skb->protocol isn't set to >> ETH_P_PAE, then we'd drop the packet in the wifi stack - might be worth >> printing out what it's set to at the point where the skb->protocol >> assignment above was removed. >> >> I'm trying to wrap my head around all this right now but I don't yet see >> how the code after the patch would not get skb->protocol correct. > > Has anybody tested plain ethernet? I have a malfunctioning dhclient on > ethernet since the weekend(it seems to not receive any packet). I did not > look after it because have other patches on my todo list currently. Maybe > it is the same error? > No, tested only with iwlwifi. Can you try the patch from [1]? - Sedat - [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=137582524017840&w=2 > Greetings, > > Hannes >