All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Simon Wunderlich <sw@simonwunderlich.de>
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
Subject: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH] ath9k: ignore radar PHY errors when DFS is not enabled
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:04:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3155015.RnApTRDnnO@prime> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54B4F062.2090301@neratec.com>

On Tuesday 13 January 2015 11:16:02 Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
> On 01/10/2015 05:26 PM, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
> > On Friday 09 January 2015 19:57:37 Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >> On 01/09/15 17:54, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
> >>> Performing spectral scans on 5 GHz channels may result in PHY errors
> >>> sent by the hardware, even if DFS support is not enabled in the driver
> >>> (e.g. channel scanning or passive monitoring). In that case channels may
> >>> falsely get marked as 'unusable'. To fix that, only process radar PHY
> >>> errors when radar is explicitly enabled in the driver.
> >> 
> >> Hi Simon,
> >> 
> >> Not an ath9k expert, but I would think those channels would already be
> >> marked as unusable, because DFS is disabled in the driver. Or does this
> >> also affect 5G channels that do not require DFS.
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> Arend
> > 
> > Hey Arend,
> > 
> > maybe that was not really clear, but this is talking about the DFS state
> > "unusable". By default, channels are marked in DFS state "usable", and
> > after the clear channel assessment (which is done e.g. when starting AP
> > mode) they are marked as "available". As soon as radar is detected they
> > are marked as "unusable".
> > 
> > These DFS state changes should only happen while there is something
> > operating with radar enabled, e.g. AP mode. It should not happen if we
> > just have monitor mode or scan for channels. These channels should then
> > stay in their previous DFS state (e.g. 'usable'). This was borked and
> > this patch tries to fix it. :)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> >      Simon
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the issue here is that DFS and spectral use the same PHY_ERROR reporting
> mechanism, and the dfs module is still in its initial state prior the
> spectral support was added. With that, feeding the dfs detector with
> PHY_ERROR frames generated by spectral scanner might cause false radar
> detections.

Yup, that's right - we noticed that too, and its written in various places 
that the FFT and DFS hardware logic is shared. :)
> 
> I did not dig how the hw->conf.radar_enabled flag is set in monitor mode,
> but if it is same as for master (i.e. set for DFS channels), then it would
> be a better approach to prevent calling ath9k_dfs_process_phyerr()
> altogether from ath9k_rx_skb_preprocess() if not set.

Hm, you mean like - if radar_enabled then dfs_process, otherwise fft_process? 
That would might be more elegant indeed ...

The monitor mode does not have the radar flag enabled, 
cfg80211_chandef_dfs_required() returns 0 in this case.

> 
> And while you're at that: slaves do not need to scan for radar, might be
> worth checking if it makes sense to selectively disable radar detection in
> STA mode. I am using attached private OpenWRT patch for that - which still
> would interfere with spectral scanning. Generally, the PHY_ERROR processing
> should be reworked but becomes quite complicated when you take into account
> special use-cases. Think of radar events being treated differently
> depending on whether a master or a monitor detected them (OC-CAC vs. ISM).

I didn't check if that is enforced correctly, but 
cfg80211_chandef_dfs_required() returns if radar is required for the various 
interface types - AP, Adhoc and Mesh have it enabled if its a DFS channel, 
client, monitor, etc don't have it enabled. That gets marked in the sdata-
>radar_required, and ieee80211_is_radar_required() checks all interfaces if 
there is any interface which needs radar. So that should have been taken care 
of.

Therefore I think that this is already handled in cfg80211/mac80211 and ath9k 
should not check the iftype at all, but only check the radar_enabled flag.

Off-channel CAC is certainly a different beast, but as far as I know we 
currently don't support that anyway. :)

Cheers,
    Simon
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20150113/d06cd1c8/attachment.pgp 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Simon Wunderlich <sw@simonwunderlich.de>
To: Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com>
Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org,
	kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com, mathias.kretschmer@fokus.fraunhofer.de,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] ath9k: ignore radar PHY errors when DFS is not enabled
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:04:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3155015.RnApTRDnnO@prime> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54B4F062.2090301@neratec.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3809 bytes --]

On Tuesday 13 January 2015 11:16:02 Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
> On 01/10/2015 05:26 PM, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
> > On Friday 09 January 2015 19:57:37 Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >> On 01/09/15 17:54, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
> >>> Performing spectral scans on 5 GHz channels may result in PHY errors
> >>> sent by the hardware, even if DFS support is not enabled in the driver
> >>> (e.g. channel scanning or passive monitoring). In that case channels may
> >>> falsely get marked as 'unusable'. To fix that, only process radar PHY
> >>> errors when radar is explicitly enabled in the driver.
> >> 
> >> Hi Simon,
> >> 
> >> Not an ath9k expert, but I would think those channels would already be
> >> marked as unusable, because DFS is disabled in the driver. Or does this
> >> also affect 5G channels that do not require DFS.
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> Arend
> > 
> > Hey Arend,
> > 
> > maybe that was not really clear, but this is talking about the DFS state
> > "unusable". By default, channels are marked in DFS state "usable", and
> > after the clear channel assessment (which is done e.g. when starting AP
> > mode) they are marked as "available". As soon as radar is detected they
> > are marked as "unusable".
> > 
> > These DFS state changes should only happen while there is something
> > operating with radar enabled, e.g. AP mode. It should not happen if we
> > just have monitor mode or scan for channels. These channels should then
> > stay in their previous DFS state (e.g. 'usable'). This was borked and
> > this patch tries to fix it. :)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> >      Simon
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the issue here is that DFS and spectral use the same PHY_ERROR reporting
> mechanism, and the dfs module is still in its initial state prior the
> spectral support was added. With that, feeding the dfs detector with
> PHY_ERROR frames generated by spectral scanner might cause false radar
> detections.

Yup, that's right - we noticed that too, and its written in various places 
that the FFT and DFS hardware logic is shared. :)
> 
> I did not dig how the hw->conf.radar_enabled flag is set in monitor mode,
> but if it is same as for master (i.e. set for DFS channels), then it would
> be a better approach to prevent calling ath9k_dfs_process_phyerr()
> altogether from ath9k_rx_skb_preprocess() if not set.

Hm, you mean like - if radar_enabled then dfs_process, otherwise fft_process? 
That would might be more elegant indeed ...

The monitor mode does not have the radar flag enabled, 
cfg80211_chandef_dfs_required() returns 0 in this case.

> 
> And while you're at that: slaves do not need to scan for radar, might be
> worth checking if it makes sense to selectively disable radar detection in
> STA mode. I am using attached private OpenWRT patch for that - which still
> would interfere with spectral scanning. Generally, the PHY_ERROR processing
> should be reworked but becomes quite complicated when you take into account
> special use-cases. Think of radar events being treated differently
> depending on whether a master or a monitor detected them (OC-CAC vs. ISM).

I didn't check if that is enforced correctly, but 
cfg80211_chandef_dfs_required() returns if radar is required for the various 
interface types - AP, Adhoc and Mesh have it enabled if its a DFS channel, 
client, monitor, etc don't have it enabled. That gets marked in the sdata-
>radar_required, and ieee80211_is_radar_required() checks all interfaces if 
there is any interface which needs radar. So that should have been taken care 
of.

Therefore I think that this is already handled in cfg80211/mac80211 and ath9k 
should not check the iftype at all, but only check the radar_enabled flag.

Off-channel CAC is certainly a different beast, but as far as I know we 
currently don't support that anyway. :)

Cheers,
    Simon

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-01-13 11:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-09 16:54 [ath9k-devel] [PATCH] ath9k: ignore radar PHY errors when DFS is not enabled Simon Wunderlich
2015-01-09 16:54 ` Simon Wunderlich
2015-01-09 18:57 ` [ath9k-devel] " Arend van Spriel
2015-01-09 18:57   ` Arend van Spriel
2015-01-10 16:26   ` [ath9k-devel] " Simon Wunderlich
2015-01-10 16:26     ` Simon Wunderlich
2015-01-13 10:16     ` [ath9k-devel] " Zefir Kurtisi
2015-01-13 10:16       ` Zefir Kurtisi
2015-01-13 11:04       ` Simon Wunderlich [this message]
2015-01-13 11:04         ` Simon Wunderlich
2015-01-13 12:08         ` [ath9k-devel] " Zefir Kurtisi
2015-01-13 12:08           ` Zefir Kurtisi
2015-01-15 14:30         ` [ath9k-devel] " Kalle Valo
2015-01-15 14:30           ` Kalle Valo
2015-01-15 15:58           ` [ath9k-devel] " Simon Wunderlich
2015-01-15 15:58             ` Simon Wunderlich

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3155015.RnApTRDnnO@prime \
    --to=sw@simonwunderlich.de \
    --cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.