Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   khalasa@piap.pl (Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Ha=C5=82asa?=)
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] 802.11n IBSS: wlan0 stops receiving packets due to aggregation after sender reboot
References: <m34l02mh71.fsf@t19.piap.pl> <m37e4tjfbu.fsf@t19.piap.pl>
        <e5b07b4ce51f806ce79b1ae06ff3cbabbaa4873d.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Tue, 29 Oct 2019 09:54:24 +0100
In-Reply-To: <e5b07b4ce51f806ce79b1ae06ff3cbabbaa4873d.camel@sipsolutions.net>
        (Johannes Berg's message of "Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:21:15 +0100")
Message-ID: <m37e4orkxr.fsf@t19.piap.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes:

> I think you just got very lucky (or unlucky) to have the same dialog
> token, because we start from 0

Right, it seems to be the case.

> - maybe we should initialize it to a
> random value to flush out such issues.

The problem I can see is that the dialog_tokens are 8-bit, way too small
to eliminate conflicts.

> Really what I think probably happened is that one of your stations lost
> the connection to the other, and didn't tell it about it in any way - so
> the other kept all the status alive.

You must have missed my previous mail - I simply rebooted that station,
and alternatively rmmoded/modprobed ath9k. But the problem originated in
a station going out of and back in range, in fact.

> I suspect to make all this work well we need to not only have the fixes
> I made recently to actually send and parse deauth frames, but also to
> even send an auth and reset the state when we receive that, so if we
> move out of range and even the deauth frame is lost, we can still reset
> properly.

That's one thing. The other is a station trying ADDBA for the first time
after boot (while the local station has seen it before that reboot).

> In any case, this is not the right approach - we need to handle the
> "lost connection" case better I suspect, but since you don't say what
> really happened I don't really know that that's what you're seeing.

I guess we need to identify "new connection" reliably. Otherwise,
the new connections are treated as old ones and it doesn't work.

Now how can it be fixed?
--=20
Krzysztof Halasa

=C5=81UKASIEWICZ Research Network
Industrial Research Institute for Automation and Measurements PIAP
Al. Jerozolimskie 202, 02-486 Warsaw, Poland