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 80BFAC3DA7F for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:58:39 +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:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc: To:From:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=CRPQHy8NVuYfweq8H/XE/bGOW/EAgCc+Ux9mT+dORpg=; b=uFfaYWggIGq2PtiJjPXs2LS9KZ 5857m7Y6oMAQgIhgforCUo/K646UYLuVWmOTbHsFQeNQEZgaoELJ8Kq/Mo649hjqdlZpCdj/UPmps 7PoU35CrPdC4fshbaBcH72cQsfOpgD1uRs6kz506aMWTmHCni6jYsr96m+Qa6Pp7HNKZHO24FNjbQ krTjHuO3Bj/EHukkyoyfCzzyeVL5mG+ZEpdr1Roic/X8DqIgcHS94pbXKuAiBBGEvtgJa7JfoC3n+ 9AnOllqhuVy55Q4XkFfk0k/JoClgTw8QwfWJOOttrwnMh4TsUH7cc+WwlofAlnQAo5gYpLmLnaWSF fr6NBjUg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1secs1-0000000ARjv-3SIH; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:58:37 +0000 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1secrv-0000000ARiL-0scR for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:58:35 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5740961F0E; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:58:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F37DC4AF0E; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:58:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1723737510; bh=vV69M/rpZM35DO1TBNNyQ3w7yWmttvCJ05EdXdKKqWo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=l9MIfvMZQzq4+pPytYlvww/yykLHs9AIAkjSUqjVVE9Ymp/N69f7CViygMdLol9FP F5h12TmWb+WXKRtBk9M/RNjdNKZ+QnEPmLyrZm5e6enhn/n5ltf2aGKU3riCRzPMQq D8mwXzpS7ld4LKnqQDYi/zrlXO/OiwdPTKojc6euRxO4YAN8pR/slLaUDtAm08CQek CSF9wIIlz7mGx2luFKKvv4i7SrcacAkPU4+L4H09JEp1I6qSCxcNV320C166XFOMRu 4ikZQofQuTtqHWCvELN9MwJj1foCmL0BbChZ034OTpH/p/MwHH+baqn0wDWvd56OI4 xVkpQxGd/Z3Kw== From: Kalle Valo To: James Prestwood Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: ath10k "failed to install key for vdev 0 peer : -110" References: <9eafac85-2262-4f92-a70b-32109f65c05a@gmail.com> <87r0apyjc3.fsf@kernel.org> <6ba02350-3c8c-4664-9d68-67cb7e90eddb@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:58:27 +0300 In-Reply-To: <6ba02350-3c8c-4664-9d68-67cb7e90eddb@gmail.com> (James Prestwood's message of "Thu, 15 Aug 2024 08:47:35 -0700") Message-ID: <87ed6pydzw.fsf@kernel.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240815_085831_317053_9DCC6C4C X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 19.38 ) 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 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 =3D ath10k_send_key(arvif, key, cmd, macaddr, flags); >>> if (ret) >>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 return ret; >>> >>> time_left =3D wait_for_completion_timeout(&ar->install_key_done, 3 * HZ= ); >>> if (time_left =3D=3D 0) >>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 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? --=20 https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatc= hes