Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com ([209.85.218.41]:35979 "EHLO mail-oi0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965304AbcIZMin (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 08:38:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20160926102348.8695-1-zajec5@gmail.com> <09084e8b-829d-9a13-ae16-a493438216ac@broadcom.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:38:40 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20160926_143906_869645_FCB5722E) Subject: Re: [PATCH] brcmfmac: implement more accurate skb tracking To: Arend Van Spriel Cc: Kalle Valo , Franky Lin , Hante Meuleman , Pieter-Paul Giesberts , Franky Lin , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "open list:BROADCOM BRCM80211 IEEE802.11n WIRELESS DRIVER" , Network Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List , =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 26 September 2016 at 14:13, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki w= rote: > On 26 September 2016 at 13:46, Arend Van Spriel > wrote: >> On 26-9-2016 12:23, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki wrote: >>> From: Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki >>> >>> We need to track 802.1x packets to know if there are any pending ones >>> for transmission. This is required for performing key update in the >>> firmware. >> >> The problem we are trying to solve is a pretty old one. The problem is >> that wpa_supplicant uses two separate code paths: EAPOL messaging >> through data path and key configuration though nl80211. > > Can I find it described/reported somewhere? > > >>> Unfortunately our old tracking code wasn't very accurate. It was >>> treating skb as pending as soon as it was passed by the netif. Actual >>> handling packet to the firmware was happening later as brcmfmac >>> internally queues them and uses its own worker(s). >> >> That does not seem right. As soon as we get a 1x packet we need to wait >> with key configuration regardless whether it is still in the driver or >> handed over to firmware already. > > OK, thanks. Actually, it's not OK. I was trying to report/describe/discuss this problem for over a week. I couldn't get much of answer from you. I had to come with a patch I worked on for quite some time. Only then you decided to react and reply with a reason for a nack. I see this patch may be wrong (but it's still hard to know what's going wrong without a proper hostapd bug report). I'd expect you to somehow work & communicate with open source community. --=20 Rafa=C5=82