From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EE24C3DA7F for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 17:46:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=xulcGXZEULbJ4WCNcSPQTMNlh6M7re1bQifn38go1EI=; b=MWjzqbRA5q/VPTnoet3I63MFLj qaClreKB0ftekpwdA5AXSGszUu6ls8zJavCHXZ3K7QifZxxqXkDrNP5zTQyNKzdFa0/Ghn2lUOWpm 0FVtLtxoI87ex4j/JXBvQ2neQxN57Z25thtS3y+iI3BIff4LkCCNRpbXwhB1V7CAd742dkucWF1EF 0VopjwD0aI8vRJSZi+59D4uHALYHKV7KC6VT6c5MOZkZzrGnaYl5iSrtiy/LzL3FE3uDCZ3XVh93o UXGz+skOiT8zK7Gu4ktR3izh0Ku1mO8XKJMRMYMRBIFDX3eJxN2G99QqhwCO+3/KJ2R0WDSXgDOLP 5HtAIpSg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1seeY0-0000000AgM6-36Gs; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 17:46:04 +0000 Received: from mail-pg1-x536.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::536]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sedV4-0000000AXUu-3rN9 for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:39:04 +0000 Received: by mail-pg1-x536.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-7c3d9a5e050so825467a12.2 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:38:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1723739937; x=1724344737; darn=lists.infradead.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xulcGXZEULbJ4WCNcSPQTMNlh6M7re1bQifn38go1EI=; b=jEeRi2IhAtzjaHAp3bTqTSXTucKGXSScqScmjqzKVWCDHh6TXjZ0iu5xBcw3rxhNu5 WjLCCUUumFL7M0+58w8nv/lPZ7TlcGGqO2/84Q2GlykI6aMvp9DkJZDXtavqo+/hS6tl PCeMBX4s91cqGQVQgYG95eFZUe/1ujjKtcewiYligOjf4DRx8af8wRdgIb6MpSVAowMG vOEloh6/f0k9AOg1Xz+g7YRbd+Cuq1wOZM+DDznNxv6ftNniSlFEPk6gN11b3hVzTphI j4ptzXKGkPt7cWsSGUBmZ8mCOJX3A9LUWRXmjw6wFpyo4kCDqN591nAS+JGt6x945/pW HvTQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1723739937; x=1724344737; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xulcGXZEULbJ4WCNcSPQTMNlh6M7re1bQifn38go1EI=; b=gYkGouO+3TZ0EF42zlnkiBU/H4EsaPkPkDqVyFhTZkHBQkleY1GbjsKgFMU4i54VQl vpqVBOOuFgjZcMxdoE6HMO0h4wHW1tA0TmTiUDu8oQTvp+JVPMw6oYIJkSpdewGwA7Ew sEKAwymXDmp/ZJEtUAHDGhbsONcBZLhQILds0XTIWIE084SPKlyqz+Quiu7nA4ZSUrKO 48zQT+ru+SSQR5SswwFd3RQHYC1LP+zudhWNq4OvbzSmFj1PVzsD9OYNFGewaHhU4qfo F/msumMPNo0ucH/VfAjeaHG8HU+VYP4hZcVYg525mpRm3KQ5t1mO0u5D3H5dZPDWQ7c6 +bkA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWxEvgoAXBelqiHlA3wX6HR/ez62t6fQEnJI8erTrt/Fz7L9aIqv28a+fr8r7Ni2i1dojVq36uHgfkTfgKVeBTxonMKLhkX03v0Tg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwyNjjm63XN0RShtqplLCjAXDCJDBSWsAVU+4BEMxPnFVUIzCng Au8BdR07SriMFexirCAl75AxpPELbc6vLj5pTmJDUI4tRnDGyM3O X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHf9LDzrQUk0mhNX0HZI9A7eurftX5m+Q9cLW4kXKvfJE7VxepV3F0mOJa0dPy47BylagdAYg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:9184:b0:1c4:986a:de71 with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-1c90502fc2emr307361637.35.1723739937328; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.121.195] ([152.193.78.90]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-7127aef4504sm1188265b3a.132.2024.08.15.09.38.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3dfd6f81-62d0-4959-9ebe-69fceab3f32f@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 09:38:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: ath10k "failed to install key for vdev 0 peer : -110" To: Kalle Valo Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org References: <9eafac85-2262-4f92-a70b-32109f65c05a@gmail.com> <87r0apyjc3.fsf@kernel.org> <6ba02350-3c8c-4664-9d68-67cb7e90eddb@gmail.com> <87ed6pydzw.fsf@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US From: James Prestwood In-Reply-To: <87ed6pydzw.fsf@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240815_093858_982937_9B1AB5EE X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 18.97 ) X-BeenThere: ath10k@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+ath10k=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 8/15/24 8:58 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > James Prestwood writes: > >> On 8/15/24 7:03 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> James Prestwood 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