Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-4836-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFED-j=3_xLuJFp5R_gThMtv2C6r6WzRxzrY3_wjFTn=XJQLwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb884b84dbaa1c97f9d3a1e610f98ec6e069a706.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <CAFED-jkowv0GTtWUC3=HwGNjzwe8d2F-m_QrZratdpA5HnkuBA@mail.gmail.com> <52d4ad82257001925849a34aa9fd717046208e26.camel@sipsolutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <52d4ad82257001925849a34aa9fd717046208e26.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From: Janusz Dziedzic <janusz.dziedzic@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:22:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFED-jk8pJheJEViESnE54f-K+JgRMiWoiCSa0GBt=RKaCn7sw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BE200 - 6.5 backports - disabled EHT issue
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

pon., 18 mar 2024 o 10:58 Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> napisa=
=C5=82(a):
>
> On Sun, 2024-03-17 at 10:53 +0100, Janusz Dziedzic wrote:
> > pt., 15 mar 2024 o 19:04 Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> napi=
sa=C5=82(a):
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I see this one do this:
> > > >  if (!ieee80211_verify_sta_eht_mcs_support(sdata, sband, eht_oper))
> > > >       *conn_flags |=3D IEEE80211_CONN_DISABLE_EHT;
> > > >
> > > > Testing on openwrt and using backports.
> > > > Is there some patch I can easy cherry-pick to fix it?
> > > > So far just disable ieee80211_verify_sta_eht_mcs_support() check an=
d
> > > > BE200 works in EHT mode correctly.
> > >
> > > Then either the code there or the AP is broken?
> > >
> > > That function checks that the client supports the MCSes that the AP
> > > requires. If it lets you connect without them, then it's broken. If t=
he
> > > checks there are wrong, the code is broken :)
> > >
> > > I guess you can capture the assoc response frame and we can check
> > > manually.
> > Added such dbg:
> >
> > printk(KERN_ERR "%d vs %d, %d vs %d\n",
> >                                 req_rx_nss, have_rx_nss,
> >                                 req_tx_nss, have_tx_nss);
> >                         if (req_rx_nss > have_rx_nss ||
> >                             req_tx_nss > have_tx_nss)
> >                                 return false;
> >
> > [   70.243183] ieee80211_verify_sta_eht_mcs_support nss 4  -
> > (ARRAY_SIZE(req->rx_tx_max_nss))
> > [   70.248336] 4 vs 2, 4 vs 2
> > [   70.251035] disable EHT due to mcs
> > [   70.260724] wlan1: send auth to ....
> >
> > AP have 4 NSS.
>
> Which doesn't just mean it _has_ 4 NSS though, it also means it
> _clients_ to have 4 NSS, if I'm reading the code correctly? So we
> correctly don't connect, and the AP incorrectly lets us connect if you
> hack out the check.
>
> Arguably the AP should not even include 4 NSS as the minimum
> requirement, but of course it can, if it really wants pretty much no
> client to connect (in EHT) :-)
>
> Unless I'm misreading the code, but it looks pretty straight-forward.
> Check what wireshark says about the EHT operation element?
>

Basic EHT-MCS And Nss Set: 0x44444444
Seems this is AP issue, will report it.
Thanks for help.

BR
Janusz