From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:55692 "EHLO mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751915Ab2KVU3D convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:29:03 -0500 Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id d7so2136236wer.19 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:29:02 -0800 (PST) From: "Mark Phillips" To: "'Johannes Berg'" Cc: References: (sfid-20121029_125608_365462_578D7DBB) <1352838513.9466.31.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1352838513.9466.31.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Subject: RE: [BUG]: 3.7.0.rc2 iwlwifi: Mn=onitor mode for Intel 6235 includes FCS in frames Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:03:47 -0000 Message-ID: <005a01cdc84d$3c7ffc30$b57ff490$@virgin.net> (sfid-20121122_212925_056952_679C637F) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Great, glad you are sorting it out, thanks for all your help! Cheers Mark -----Original Message----- From: Johannes Berg [mailto:johannes@sipsolutions.net] Sent: 13 November 2012 20:29 To: MARK PHILLIPS Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG]: 3.7.0.rc2 iwlwifi: Mn=onitor mode for Intel 6235 includes FCS in frames Hi Mark, sorry for the delay, On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 11:56 +0000, MARK PHILLIPS wrote: > I have found bug which breaks monitor mode for the Intel Centrino > Advanced-N 6235. When in monitor mode the FCS is returned appended to > the frames which confuses wireshark. > > The fix appears to be trivial, just add IEEE80211_HW_RX_INCLUDES_FCS > to the hw->flags when in monitor mode via a change to > drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/mac80211.c Yes, this seems to be a reasonable change, unfortunately mac80211 doesn't provide a per packet flag whether the FCS is present or not. I think I prefer doing the modification in iwlagn_mac_add_interface(), and will also add a comment. FWIW, this appears to be a regression introduced in 578977264199de9815ace51ade87cec4894cf010, which went into 3.5. I'm a bit confused why this didn't appear in my tests though, so I'm trying to see if different firmware versions behave differently. johannes