Re: [PATCH] brcmfmac: implement more accurate skb tracking
From: RafaÅ MiÅecki
Date: Thu Sep 29 2016 - 17:57:34 EST
On 27 September 2016 at 11:24, Arend Van Spriel
> On 26-9-2016 14:38, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote:
>> On 26 September 2016 at 14:13, RafaÅ MiÅecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 26 September 2016 at 13:46, Arend Van Spriel
>>> <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 26-9-2016 12:23, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote:
>>>>> From: RafaÅ MiÅecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
> We do or at least make an honest attempt, but there is more on our plate
> so responses may be delayed. It also does not help when you get anal and
> preachy when we do respond. Also not OK. In this case the delay is
> caused because I had to pick up the thread(s) as Hante is on vacation
> (he needed a break :-p ). However, you started sending patches so I
> decided to look at and respond to those. Sorry if you felt like we left
> you hanging to dry.
I believe I get easily irritated due to my communication experience I
got so far :(
Over a year ago I reported brcmfmac can't recover from failed
register_netdev(ice). This bug remains unfixed.
In 2014 I reported problem with 80 MHz support. I didn't have hardware
to fix & test it on my own (you weren't able/allowed to send me one of
your PCIe cards). In remained broken until I fixed it year later.
You missed my crash bug report about caused by missing eth_type_trans
and came with patch on your own a month later.
Earlier this year I reported you problem with BCM4366 and multiple
interfaces. I didn't get much help. 3 months later I came with patch
to workaround the problem but you said there's a better way to do
this. It took me 2 weeks to figure out a new wlioctl API for that
while all I needed was a simple hint on "interface_remove".
Right now I'm waiting to get any answer from you about 4366c0
firmware. It's still less than 2 weeks since I asked for it, but a
simple ETA would be nice. I'm actually not sure if I should report
more problems to you to don't distract you from pending things.
Problems with brcmf_netdev_wait_pend8021x were reported multiples
times for last few months. When I finally got time for that it took me
a week to debug them.
As you can see, it takes me months to get help on some things. And in
few cases I never got much help at all. Yes, I was hoping to have you
more involved into brcmfmac development and problems solving. I guess
things didn't meet my expectations and I got grumpy & preachy.