[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#487721: linux-2.6: ipw2200 wrongly claims it can scan for hidden ESSIDs



Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.25-5
Severity: normal
Tags: patch

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Since I upgraded from Linux 2.6.24, NetworkManager cannot associate my
Intel wireless card, handled by the ipw2200 driver, with my AP, which
has a hidden SSID.

NetworkManager thinks that wpa_supplicant should be able to scan for
specific hidden SSIDs if the underlying driver advertises
IW_SCAN_CAPA_ESSID, which ipw2200 does since 2.6.25.  However, this
doesn't work.

I have confirmed that NetworkManager is interpreting this capability
flag correctly and checked that wpa_supplicant has the patch that I
was referred to - see the thread on linux-wireless
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/15560>.
Therefore I believe the driver is at fault.

This should be fixable by removing the capability flag:

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200.c
index 6e70460..457c078 100644
- --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2200.c
@@ -8973,7 +8973,7 @@ static int ipw_wx_get_range(struct net_device *dev,
 	range->enc_capa = IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA | IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA2 |
 		IW_ENC_CAPA_CIPHER_TKIP | IW_ENC_CAPA_CIPHER_CCMP;
 
- -	range->scan_capa = IW_SCAN_CAPA_ESSID | IW_SCAN_CAPA_TYPE;
+	range->scan_capa = IW_SCAN_CAPA_TYPE;
 
 	IPW_DEBUG_WX("GET Range\n");
 	return 0;
- --- END ---

Ben.

- -- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (100, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.25-2-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIX/n079ZNCRIGYgcRAtTDAJ0QJkA9bMRF6l9AEr5X6TukLEyq9ACfW+YL
rCQutbYqXk8u8vZP8Zawka0=
=pip+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: