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 --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-13 11:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-09 16:54 [PATCH] ath9k: ignore radar PHY errors when DFS is not enabled Simon Wunderlich
2015-01-09 18:57 ` Arend van Spriel
2015-01-10 16:26 ` Simon Wunderlich
2015-01-13 10:16 ` Zefir Kurtisi
2015-01-13 11:04 ` Simon Wunderlich [this message]
2015-01-13 12:08 ` Zefir Kurtisi
2015-01-15 14:30 ` Kalle Valo
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=arend@broadcom.com \
--cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
--cc=kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathias.kretschmer@fokus.fraunhofer.de \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).