Re: Bullseye wi-fi. I have to restart NetworkManager every 5 minutes
On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 09:23:55AM +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Hi,
>
> $ uname -a
> Linux t440 6.0.0-0.deb11.6-amd64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Debian
> 6.0.12-1~bpo11+1 (2022-12-19) x86_64 GNU/Linux
>
> $ cat /etc/debian_version
> 11.2
>
>
First things first: bring your system up to date with bullseye and, ideally,
lose the backports kernel or upgrade to bookworm.
Bookworm is now just past that kernel version at 6.0.13
At that point, with everything current, we can revisit this :)
All the very best, as ever,
Andy
> For some reason, every time I am connected to wifi, pages can't load after 5
> minutes of activity and I have to restart NetworkManager to get them back.
>
> $ ping 8.8.8.8 # nothing
>
> # dmesg -C # clears the buffer
>
> # systemctl restart NetworkManager
>
> $ ping 8.8.8.8 # it works
>
> $ dmesg
> [ 2862.837299] wlp3s0: deauthenticating from 74:a0:2f:a8:35:be by local
> choice (Reason: 3=DEAUTH_LEAVING)
> [ 2863.508089] ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM
> bf0212f2-788f-c64d-a5b3-1f738e285ade (0x1001)
> [ 2863.508098] ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM
> bf0212f2-788f-c64d-a5b3-1f738e285ade (0x1001)
> [ 2863.508100] ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM
> bf0212f2-788f-c64d-a5b3-1f738e285ade (0x1001)
> [ 2863.508102] ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM
> bf0212f2-788f-c64d-a5b3-1f738e285ade (0x1001)
> [ 2863.508104] ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM
> bf0212f2-788f-c64d-a5b3-1f738e285ade (0x1001)
> [ 2863.508106] ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM
> bf0212f2-788f-c64d-a5b3-1f738e285ade (0x1001)
> [ 2863.508108] ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM
> bf0212f2-788f-c64d-a5b3-1f738e285ade (0x1001)
>
>
> I googled the above and this looks like a known kernel bug affecting old
> Thinkpads.
>
> I have the latest kernel from Bullseye backports. I don't want to upgrade
> yet.
>
> Any clue?
>
> --
> Ottavio Caruso
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
Reply to: