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

Bug#651199: iwlwifi: Connection lost on "WPA: Group rekeying"



Hi!

I've now tested without NM and with the latest kernel from experimental.
As far as I can see in wpa_supplicant with full debug everything looks
normal during the group rekeying. But I lose the connection.

It works fine on the kernels in squeeze and squeeze-backports.

I cant find any relevant log messages from the driver.

To reproduce connect to WPA-TKIP and idle on the connection. At group
rekeying there is a good chance you will lose the connection. (You're
still connected but cant send any data trough).

Im testing with while sleep 10; do ping -c1 google.com > /dev/null ||
echo "failed `date`";done

BR,
Andreas

tor 2011-12-08 klockan 15:12 -0600 skrev Jonathan Nieder:
> Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
> 
> > I've further noticed that the rekeying works while on heavy network
> > load. It more or less only breaks on idle connection.
> 
> Was this a regression?  What is the last kernel version you tried
> that worked?
> 
> Can we take a peek at the relevant portion of syslog?
> 
> Please test v3.2-rc4 from experimental or a newer kernel.  If it is
> still reproducible, please write a summary of your findings to
> ilw@linux.intel.com, cc-ing Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>,
> linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, and
> either me or this bug log so we can track it.
> 
> Be sure to include:
> 
>  - steps to reproduce and the resulting symptoms
> 
>  - full "dmesg" output from booting the affected kernel and
>    reproducing trouble
> 
>  - an event log from reproducing it without NetworkManager, if
>    possible[*]
> 
>  - which kernel versions you've tested, and what happened with
>    each
> 
>  - any other weird symptoms or observations
> 
>  - a link to this bug log, in case the reader wants the full
>    story
> 
> Hope that helps,
> Jonathan
> 
> [*] instructions here:
> http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Documentation/Reporting_bugs





Reply to: