ATH10K Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Prestwood <prestwoj@gmail.com>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: ath10k "failed to install key for vdev 0 peer <mac>: -110"
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:38:53 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3dfd6f81-62d0-4959-9ebe-69fceab3f32f@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ed6pydzw.fsf@kernel.org>

On 8/15/24 8:58 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> James Prestwood <prestwoj@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 8/15/24 7:03 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> James Prestwood <prestwoj@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> So I have no resolution to this (trying to get the AP vendor to chase
>>>> it down), but I'm toying with the idea of trying to work around
>>>> whatever issue the AP is having when this occurs. The only thing I can
>>>> think of is that there is a 3 second delay between the authentication
>>>> and reassociation, and perhaps this is causing some timeout in the AP
>>>> and in turn the deauth.
>>>>
>>>> I'm wondering how long it should take to add/remove a key from the
>>>> firmware? 3 seconds seems very long, and I question if this timeout is
>>>> really necessary or was just chosen arbitrarily? Is this something
>>>> that could be lowered down to e.g. 1 second without negative impacts?
>>>> The code in question is in ath10k_install_key:
>>>>
>>>> ret = ath10k_send_key(arvif, key, cmd, macaddr, flags);
>>>> if (ret)
>>>>       return ret;
>>>>
>>>> time_left = wait_for_completion_timeout(&ar->install_key_done, 3 * HZ);
>>>> if (time_left == 0)
>>>>       return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> I can't remember anymore but I'm guessing the 3s delay was chosen
>>> arbitrarily just to be on the safe side and not get unnecessary
>>> timeouts.
>> Thanks, I have reduced this to 1 second and have had it running on a
>> client for ~19 hours. Still am seeing the timeouts, but no more than
>> prior. And even with the timeouts the roams are successful.
>>
>> After doing more looking in the spec I did see that there is
>> dot11ReassociationDeadline which may be coming into play here. Of
>> course these APs aren't advertising any TIE or even support FT
>> resource requests that so its impossible to know for sure, and hostapd
>> AFAICT doesn't enforce any deadlines even if you set it... But in any
>> case the timeout reduction is helping immensely and avoiding a
>> disconnect.
> Yeah, reducing the time out might a good option. 3s feels like overkill,
> especially if 1s timeout passes your tests.
>
> But I do wonder what's the root cause here. Are you saying that SET_KEY
> always works for you?

Yeah its only key removal that fails, we proceed on and adding the new 
key succeeds 100% of the time and in most cases this is fine, except 
these picky APs that don't like the 3 second delay.

Fwiw this seemed to start after going from 5.15 -> 6.2, which is a 
needle in a haystack, I know. Makes me think there is a race somewhere 
(like in the firmware) and the command timing changed just enough 
between 5.15 and 6.2 that it happens more frequently.

Thanks,

James



  reply	other threads:[~2024-08-15 17:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-12 13:11 ath10k "failed to install key for vdev 0 peer <mac>: -110" James Prestwood
2024-07-14 21:15 ` Felix Kaechele
2024-07-15 11:54 ` James Prestwood
2024-08-12 17:33   ` James Prestwood
2024-08-15 14:03     ` Kalle Valo
2024-08-15 15:47       ` James Prestwood
2024-08-15 15:58         ` Kalle Valo
2024-08-15 16:38           ` James Prestwood [this message]
2024-08-16 10:19 ` Baochen Qiang
2024-08-16 12:04   ` James Prestwood
2024-09-04 18:03     ` Jeff Johnson
2024-09-05  1:46       ` Baochen Qiang
2024-11-25 13:32         ` James Prestwood
2024-11-26  2:56           ` Baochen Qiang
2024-12-06  2:47         ` Baochen Qiang
2024-12-06 12:27           ` James Prestwood
2024-12-09  6:48             ` Baochen Qiang
2024-12-09 12:37               ` James Prestwood
2025-11-14 21:52                 ` James Prestwood

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=3dfd6f81-62d0-4959-9ebe-69fceab3f32f@gmail.com \
    --to=prestwoj@gmail.com \
    --cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=kvalo@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox