Bug 249156
| Summary: | Unable to connect with ipw4965 device | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Thomas M Steenholdt <thms> | ||||
| Component: | NetworkManager | Assignee: | Dan Williams <dcbw> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | low | ||||||
| Version: | 7 | CC: | fedora | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2008-01-10 23:39:21 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Thomas M Steenholdt
2007-07-21 16:40:43 UTC
setting things up manually, using wpa_supplicant, iwconfig, ifup etc works fine. So this is really not a driver problem, but more likely a driver/nm compatibility thing in some way. I am also seeing this problem connecting to a WPA PEAP TKIP network. I changed the network configuration to WPA2-only (AES/CCMP). Same result. Then enabled ESSID broadcasting. Now, *poof* - things work. It's not quite clear to me what happens, but it seems like it's having problems determining link (or linking to) hidden APs.. This is the area of the log that starts the difference: good: Aug 5 22:20:43 whipher NetworkManager: <info> Activation (wlan0) Stage 2 of 5 (Device Configure) complete. Aug 5 22:20:45 whipher NetworkManager: <info> nm-netlink-monitor.c - nm_netlink_monitor_event_handler (724) netlink reports device wlan0 link now 0 Aug 5 22:20:45 whipher NetworkManager: <info> nm-device.c - nm_device_set_active_link (596) device wlan0 link state set to 1 Aug 5 22:20:45 whipher NetworkManager: <info> Activation (wlan0/wireless) Stage 2 of 5 (Device Configure) successful. Connected to access point 'mynet'. Aug 5 22:20:45 whipher NetworkManager: <info> Activation (wlan0) Stage 3 of 5 (IP Configure Start) scheduled. bad: Aug 5 18:36:18 whipher NetworkManager: <info> Activation (wlan0) Stage 2 of 5 (Device Configure) complete. Aug 5 18:36:58 whipher NetworkManager: <info> Activation (wlan0/wireless): association took too long (>40s), failing activation. Aug 5 18:36:58 whipher NetworkManager: <info> Activation (wlan0) failure scheduled... Aug 5 18:36:58 whipher NetworkManager: <info> Activation (wlan0) failed for access point (mynet) Aug 5 18:36:58 whipher NetworkManager: <info> Activation (wlan0) failed. Aug 5 18:36:58 whipher NetworkManager: <info> Deactivating device wlan0. Aug 5 18:36:59 whipher NetworkManager: <info> nm-netlink-monitor.c - nm_netlink_monitor_event_handler (724) netlink reports device wlan0 link now 0 Aug 5 18:37:06 whipher NetworkManager: <info> nm-netlink-monitor.c - nm_netlink_monitor_event_handler (724) netlink reports device wlan0 link now 0 Created attachment 160791 [details]
proposed patch (should at least be reviewed)
I've been experimenting a bit tonight and this is what I've found.
AP_SCAN 2 : ESSID is set on the wireless device, but it never
associates. Presumably because it cannot find the AP.
AP_SCAN 1: ESSID does NOT get set on the wireless device, so does not
work alone - during the device setup phase, if you issue an "iwconfig
wlan0 essid whatever", the device will associate fine.
So I made a patch to incorporate the two and to prove a point. :)
Please note, that this patch is intended to prove that the association
to hidden IS possible, even with ipw4965 devices. The patch changes the
AP_SCAN value for hidden networks and I have no clue as to what that
will do for other wireless devices. Also, since I've not gotten
acquainted to very much of the NetworkManager code, there might be
better places to put some of these things. So it should at the very
least be reviewed by someone more familiar with the NM code than myself.
This patch has also been posted on the NetworkManager development mailinglist
for comments. There are people there who are experiencing the same problem.
|