From patchwork Thu Jan 27 12:06:02 2022 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89tienne_Morice?= X-Patchwork-Id: 1585937 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: bilbo.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=MX+DDvuA; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=mail.com header.i=@mail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=dbd5af2cbaf7 header.b=kBsgI4e+; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=lists.infradead.org (client-ip=2607:7c80:54:e::133; helo=bombadil.infradead.org; envelope-from=hostap-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.infradead.org; receiver=) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:e::133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Jlq5z5CRjz9tk5 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 07:37:59 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:MIME-Version: Date:Message-ID:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=PP9TsNjoiMvuSuSKJjiDfYeoIVXsmrmCny+iK+Cfd/w=; b=MX+DDvuAb5uvW4s7cue7QJHhmD 77WG2JzVReG4yREW02N8G5uEGffrtBWO8vgiHRVFn+x6NMjgc0eMK1uGbUVf+jg3vC+1R9mAcXw10 JfqEb3g3iwjgMmJZo38oEC4a2lQXTDIQOvpQh+7JeHugv37M8OABD92aHHEWSSsPdHbYK9X7FhTXq 7DNO/9CYszjUlLjllmMg4R9c48fmsEiCTgAhGS9SCbojKxfiNsZzh5owQc5GG+T2m+TGNgznlouaB pmksOGBbFnn/4oqDDKUVgXuQUlQgdFkbQHd6WBYtn0b1BXCGWqZPFoHywlc+4UdRr45wb6pn1upGu s526uD8w==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nDXzb-003VFn-Ov; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:37:11 +0000 Received: from mout.gmx.com ([74.208.4.201]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nD3XS-00Fc0v-R3 for hostap@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:06:10 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mail.com; s=dbd5af2cbaf7; t=1643285165; bh=DVIuSFczKAaLTkeOPxEomC0dJMJp+gKQ973u+qjspiY=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:Subject:References:To:From:In-Reply-To; b=kBsgI4e+d9nKX7C1j185kkDGXaM1iEftW0VM0Ln0nWwc8JzmbfSd+skyrG0G3ZIeT lCbYizqy5EuOymKKQYLDxUWpUrm1XFBwr4IgN0yx7hXtky2AYgqGk5oS3/hu8JqzFP i5rI89hOxcauOuUBIxLcT2RhawwK4RjMZqJRbFQo= X-UI-Sender-Class: 214d933f-fd2f-45c7-a636-f5d79ae31a79 Received: from [10.208.13.229] ([134.76.223.13]) by smtp.mail.com (mrgmxus004 [74.208.5.15]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MX2tm-1mjTzc2haW-00VzR7 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 13:06:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 13:06:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Subject: wpa_supplicant 2.10 - Scan failed Content-Language: en-US References: <2b7faabb-3de3-9a82-6d01-afe6a5895857@mail.com> To: hostap@lists.infradead.org From: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89tienne_Morice?= In-Reply-To: <2b7faabb-3de3-9a82-6d01-afe6a5895857@mail.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <2b7faabb-3de3-9a82-6d01-afe6a5895857@mail.com> X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:kZBEfrjcbExhqudw5yTAtsxlqGdFb/Dtt39A4acQgLAB6tMNzhN OtKcpHGbcQMnqScZ1T4fvT0LbYIbekLUinYgnWFw5MPf7XpZxFrlSvqxbV3giPN+UJwZnb5 SlbOdRJIs6mmoQTUpxeGi+QwbdXRWR6MEp5BxM6x/wXvz4rMYlSYBBHxFhIAeCL7AUNdBox gQXEbgZdFwiPOsB/zHWHw== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:ilUsHHF9T6Y=:JqhFj8pyynN+r7gr+/B93M Uh3Eh41UE/kQ11Fwa6E/72uuiqsgM9N7ZGgnm3B0sFFxtqY4UM+WiIp33wrQMVuqOU6q3+ef7 cKhQrTkLIQnCP/p/V/N9zTHrXVkZOIlXZgEXoaEXIbmgKXJYAbPEm2/f25gBzRAfkIf0iEmi2 /0CQKfjQYfc9cITRxllo4a3vyBX31rdmseZSgsP5cxkYEX1JEL03F8cvmq6FuI4s+D/fYoKCq n+Mh1GmLpmmk9BsCNMflHvzL60paG+jzplL6ZhKwGrFwio62JKtFysnCm3UpRLBAnOr6e9VVB Vl2PcgRzroBBajH2IV4qT/n9Txr6hcyWdp/RVvKhHAHXZsc4jkHAzWhCapHP9AQY9UgHskUAj rXItHYEn6ZJ7QE8ciRozAV4pqsfaQREoNdOErn9kNRXYSRuKwEc9UQY/0S8+zyTUzMtmXC5cW UvN+w41bXcQT4VzYr4PMhOZt198aZmMdxF4MZtsb4H/hLJQsgacyW4pBdwzuQamDjBUN+s+3l eGn1d1wcbdXtrRuFqfbMHbpdxJtGlM4KvPIsHYBxwmGs19F0egl4bl9xsnWkzUScpj/odGqAX Mlm+u/AWew41qStF09EiQz5Br3/dqZ7uil9IJ8MwfhNMd18CvePwZs/qFdUXHfgt0LfWm4dwT PHj1C8HVD2C/niUDakoGzbLdmHcCr6vT6uEkwhBAOGXMsd7Ex2qlkzV7DZU5cILxVrGb9qTLE KDfwYUP6MQlUmCcJGxZa9mj6P8vRrC0LrBo92hgLJsHyXjsysrI2S269NGAQ6vysQAjl1mELh DW8lDCK2KyNV4akkJivOVjg9gsJ8hXFs9KbzNXlDZS90l4AgEsjYhnBp0LmbHzxo4SWOfiOff 14iGbOWS/PKOIaX1nFg8qXn/84bZEuj+PEQbtxTaXjyH7xfuNwmQKqESYldywuv4XJwW7rrpb E36NqoC4ETx8l+ybmbo+nnprtXa7dkRv+ur78FbO4uLZVl94Pw2+aSyq7jz3f4SFD3g5dQ/f+ DuqwcVC7R/cW+3M43cZfdbv0CJNzfKY0rlwNRrJMZZsSGY4I2IGRIXcEKfXSJVawT7lenzyJL y5qjLitKjJhBF8= X-Bad-Reply: References and In-Reply-To but no 'Re:' in Subject. X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220127_040606_977112_C97F81A6 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 14.19 ) X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "bombadil.infradead.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi, Following the update from 2.9 to 2.10 in arch, we had some scan failures reported. Original report is here: Content analysis details: (-0.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [74.208.4.201 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider [neon.emorice[at]mail.com] -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID_EF Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:37:09 -0800 X-BeenThere: hostap@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Hostap" Errors-To: hostap-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.infradead.org Hi, Following the update from 2.9 to 2.10 in arch, we had some scan failures reported. Original report is here: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/73495 Upon updating and restarting wpa_supplicant, scan starts to fail with a log of this kind: > systemd[1]: Started WPA supplicant daemon (interface-specific version). > Jan 26 22:33:45 ... wpa_supplicant[422]: Successfully initialized wpa_supplicant > Jan 26 22:33:45 ... wpa_supplicant[422]: wlp3s0: CTRL-EVENT-SCAN-FAILED ret=-22 retry=1 > Jan 26 22:33:46 ... wpa_supplicant[422]: wlp3s0: CTRL-EVENT-SCAN-FAILED ret=-22 retry=1 In one case at least bisecting the problem was possible, here are the conclusions pasted from the arch thread: ===================================== For me the first commits that make it stop working are: a11804724 MSCS: Add support to send MSCS Request frames c005283c4 SCS: Sending of SCS Request frames These introduced in wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.c, in wpas_ext_capab_byte, two new flags: ``` case 6: /* Bits 48-55 */ *pos |= 0x40; /* Bit 54 - SCS */ ``` and ``` case 10: /* Bits 80-87 */ *pos |= 0x20; /* Bit 85 - Mirrored SCS */ ``` If I comment these out, or set mscs = scs = false at the beginning of the function: ``` I get it to work again. I'm posting from hostap_2_10 with this modification right now. Also, commenting the rest of the first breaking commit made no difference, so it seems to me that it's really these flags that cause the problem for me and not the rest of code depending on them introduced at the same time. Now the problem is, I have no idea what these actually do and how they cause the scan to fail. Most crucially, I don't know at all if wpa_supplicant is doing something wrong here, or if that code is actually correct but these flags are somehow propagated down the stack to components (drivers ?) that cannot handle them yet. So I'm not even sure if this should be fixed upstream here or in other packages. ====================================== Any idea how to proceed from here ? Best, Étienne Morice diff --git a/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.c b/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.c index d37a994f9..561e5f3ed 100644 --- a/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.c +++ b/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.c @@ -1883,7 +1883,7 @@ int wpa_supplicant_set_suites(struct wpa_supplicant *wpa_s, static void wpas_ext_capab_byte(struct wpa_supplicant *wpa_s, u8 *pos, int idx) { - bool scs = true, mscs = true; + bool scs = false, mscs = false; *pos = 0x00; ```