Bug#687488: #687488 debian-installer: LIFEBOOK P7120: association fails with WPA-PSK but works after installation
On Thu 27 Sep 2012 at 11:40:20 +0300, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> Sep 12 19:09:30 check-missing-firmware: copying loose file ipw2200-bss.fw from '/media' to '/lib/firmware'
Firmware is supplied.
> Sep 12 19:10:13 apt-install: Queueing package wireless-tools for later installation
> Sep 12 19:10:13 netcfg[7804]: INFO: Activating interface eth1
> Sep 12 19:10:13 netcfg[7804]: INFO: Scan of wireless interface eth1 succeeded.
The interface is operative. Your screen displays a list of discovered
ESSIDs and the option to enter an ESSID manually. At least one ESSID in
the list would presumably be the ESSID you want to connect to. Here at
home I would be looking for "Horizon". May I suggest you repeat the
install up to this point and do the same. There is no need, of course,
to completely reinstall.
> Sep 12 19:10:23 kernel: [ 298.784011] eth1: no IPv6 routers present
> Sep 12 19:11:54 netcfg[7804]: INFO: Network chosen: (null). Proceeding to connect.
You have chosen the manual route. Maybe you left the entry blank. Maybe
you entered an ESSID. I can only guess because, for some reason, "null"
is shown for either. Why, I not know.
I repeated what you did this afternoon but gave the ESSID as "Horizon"
instead of choosing it from the list as I have been doing. The log has
similar lines to yours below.
> Sep 12 19:12:01 apt-install: Queueing package wpasupplicant for later installation
> Sep 12 19:12:19 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=SCANNING address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:12:24 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=SCANNING address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:12:29 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=SCANNING address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:12:34 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=SCANNING address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:12:39 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=SCANNING address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:12:44 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=SCANNING address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:12:49 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=SCANNING address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:12:54 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=SCANNING address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:12:59 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=SCANNING address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:13:04 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=SCANNING address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:13:09 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=SCANNING address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:13:14 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=SCANNING address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:13:19 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=SCANNING address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:13:31 init: starting pid 423, tty '/dev/tty2': '-/bin/sh'
Now you have a screen telling you there was a failure to exchange keys
and associate with the AP. I'd be inclined to think an attempt to
connect with Horizon in my case was a valid procedure. Unless the manual
method is intended for non-listed ESSIDs only.
> Sep 12 19:18:53 netcfg[7804]: INFO: Activating interface eth1
> Sep 12 19:18:53 netcfg[7804]: INFO: Scan of wireless interface eth1 succeeded.
> Sep 12 19:19:13 netcfg[7804]: INFO: Taking down interface eth1
> Sep 12 19:19:13 netcfg[7804]: INFO: Network chosen: SoneraGateway00-26-44-A1-45-A9. Proceeding to connect.
After pressing "Continue" you once again have a list of ESSIDs plus a
manual method. This time you have chosen an ESSID from the list. I did
the same.
> Sep 12 19:19:32 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=INTERFACE_DISABLED address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:19:37 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=INTERFACE_DISABLED address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:19:42 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=INTERFACE_DISABLED address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
> Sep 12 19:19:47 netcfg[7804]: INFO: buf = wpa_state=INTERFACE_DISABLED address=00:16:6f:c6:9d:09
I got thirteen of these lines at 5 second intervals. The interface has
been disabled. Is this by design?
I've snipped the rest of your log because I'm not quite sure what you
did next. Aborted the attempted association and plugged in a Bluetooth
device, I think. And I assume you did not carry on much further with the
install.
I did carry on and once again got a message that key exchange and
association had failed. Continuing on, the next screen had the
information that the attempt to find available wireless networks had
failed and an ESSID for wlan0 to use could be entered. Doing this or
just pressing enter results in association with the AP and the log
shows:
Sep 27 16:26:31 netcfg[6452]: INFO: Activating interface wlan0
Sep 27 16:26:31 kernel: [ 689.964741] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): wlan0: link is not ready
Sep 27 16:26:31 kernel: [ 690.286937] wlan0: deauthenticating from 00:16:01:59:f7:9f by local choice (reason=3)
Sep 27 16:26:31 kernel: [ 690.333804] wlan0: authenticate with 00:16:01:59:f7:9f (try 1)
Sep 27 16:26:31 kernel: [ 690.335680] wlan0: authenticated
Sep 27 16:26:31 kernel: [ 690.335698] wlan0: associate with 00:16:01:59:f7:9f (try 1)
Sep 27 16:26:31 kernel: [ 690.338932] wlan0: RX AssocResp from 00:16:01:59:f7:9f (capab=0x411 status=0 aid=2)
Sep 27 16:26:31 kernel: [ 690.338935] wlan0: associated
Sep 27 16:26:31 kernel: [ 690.344120] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): wlan0: link becomes ready
Sep 27 16:26:42 kernel: [ 701.072025] wlan0: no IPv6 routers present
Sep 27 17:47:56 netcfg[6452]: INFO: Network chosen: Horizon. Proceeding to connect.
Sep 27 17:47:57 netcfg[6452]: INFO: buf = bssid=00:16:01:59:f7:9f ssid=Horizon id=0 mode=station pairwise_cipher=TKIP group_cipher=TKIP key_mgmt=WPA-PSK wpa_state=COMPLETED address=74:ea:3a:93:ad:ab
Sep 27 17:47:57 netcfg[6452]: INFO: success
Actually, without doing anything, the first line and the kernel lines
appear in syslog about forty seconds after the last screen comes up.
Configuring the wireless network came right in the end but the process
left me a little confused,
1. What is the purpose of a manual entry for an ESSID?
2. Why does choosing to give an ESSID manually lead to the interface
being disabled?
3. Shouldn't selecting an ESSID from the listed ones always succeed?
My syslog is attached.
Reply to: