From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0390728C5AC for ; Tue, 13 May 2025 11:56:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.153 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747137371; cv=none; b=l3DJp8qnAda6RQ/x7BefPZbkh59sGofAbNfl5qyhL1/x+g/s89Thr8jdP5/yNnyp2CRJfpqF/aCbldzy7PJSrpWsP8Vr7kViaRq+NiuncgO/MFBbEbMUeX6KwPR0F6SnxCpsHVofT+Pd2p1Xplu1OnMKEXQVFThpPwjKMIAPwqo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747137371; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HxJucLyY8g/2zIXMzKI1xHP2ORuFQ0eqO7cNHCOFd5Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=JMs3dEtQnWrdiuEfRgUT42550LwddChSSODKyf/B45sOrgZN2aTVDCwqWEtp6bn1QyuM4BGHI7V4YmjP00q1RcrbydpeawaxmvKrDP42NiUaiC/pooogx8IBX3MbR/wuuf1PmfYfRjj5c4/HtZq7OnKpce7CobN/6kohGO+ic2o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=jfarr.cc; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jfarr.cc; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jfarr.cc header.i=@jfarr.cc header.b=a9V5aR+2; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=ZWqikWmt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.153 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=jfarr.cc Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jfarr.cc Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jfarr.cc header.i=@jfarr.cc header.b="a9V5aR+2"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="ZWqikWmt" Received: from phl-compute-06.internal (phl-compute-06.phl.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E71911400D7; Tue, 13 May 2025 07:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-06.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 13 May 2025 07:56:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jfarr.cc; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1747137368; x=1747223768; bh=kFkGHgpBP/ eunDDfXfIMMe587KqwVZVkhuA4qU6EZhI=; b=a9V5aR+2ThoePSMbJX2sCSpkiF lahmdaatsLhfRjxP9Kp8M5knY8yA+N+FhGHlnP7tjTZz3tbY3NDfsK4FiKwIlDB5 h/DPiqyv84i/JamuiGKAJZRbd5fFr8Jfhj7/plgz/PmqAxDsNoDD5jQJje4sTPvY Wxdhr0n8FB+FflFwJTZKv5kVe2Z+sT5K0+QStNdEGLJAEAUTp46HAQCCfRs2V85b yOyt20LXnBQ8rEYsP9U0UmjjBzdVQSSLd09MP8Ujst5at4qYUn0brnAGF304yQBS WJJuFCKnfAx4Pq7IBwB8gJbNMQItSToeoAJvsjBNGGxIlImQ1A9wu+VmsVZw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1747137368; x=1747223768; bh=kFkGHgpBP/eunDDfXfIMMe587KqwVZVkhuA 4qU6EZhI=; b=ZWqikWmtLpJLP3976elvTuulMpzxNOVvz/OYC1TmUYBmno16/cq R6a2SAwTLvLuU977Af+lValc7j714yurUw2S/wegPXTRiwlEPgfs5XBwq7pZ8BiX dqX5P1Bfgauq/CWNNg6AjK7q0KpmzRfJ4vCWwfhdUv/Ip15SGHa242SF+w1I9beE LCP1wlRG16HwwBcgRDL/PZJHpRrgrazPcEaB5Q0AZwB6uwi5S7lMTf/tIsNTG9+r mCzcNrpRkzGU7Bb5uIU+OrkvayX+ObHUwNOsmnyhn46d0ZQsk95ujnrpRq3jANFh J8HKh1e/N6r9o8P23Uy2pTrNRr8JAb021jg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgdeftdegtdegucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnegfrhhlucfvnfffucdludehmdenucfjughrpeffhffvvefu kfhfgggtuggjsehttdortddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpeflrghnucfjvghnughrihhkucfhrg hrrhcuoehkvghrnhgvlhesjhhfrghrrhdrtggtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeduveei ffefhfdtvdeiheffudffheelueehtdeigedvtdetfedvgeduffffveduheenucffohhmrg hinhepphgtrghpnhhgrdhithdpshhiphhsohhluhhtihhonhhsrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhs thgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepkhgvrhhnvghlsehjfh grrhhrrdgttgdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohephedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghp thhtohepjhhohhgrnhhnvghssehsihhpshholhhuthhiohhnshdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtth hopehprhgvshhtfihojhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehlihhnuhigqdif ihhrvghlvghsshesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehmihhrih grmhdrrhgrtghhvghlrdhkohhrvghnsghlihhtsehinhhtvghlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthht ohepihifugeslhhishhtshdrlhhinhhugidruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i01d149f8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 13 May 2025 07:56:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 13:56:05 +0200 From: Jan Hendrik Farr To: Johannes Berg Cc: James Prestwood , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Miri Korenblit , iwd@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: wifi: iwlwifi: SAE fails when AP sends confirm before STA Message-ID: References: <4ffbeb94-ac19-4437-9d98-24981fe6c240@gmail.com> <15943a1f-0e5d-4705-b8ef-3f22fa3fe672@gmail.com> <902daf8802c723d72fff0155cd0638848ce1bc7f.camel@sipsolutions.net> <8a1c5172bc0fd9d2a33522294d1a2a4c4ceb313a.camel@sipsolutions.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On 13 13:46:51, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2025-05-13 at 13:29 +0200, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote: > > > > There is a an SAE confirm sent by the AP. It's frame 170 in > > capture2.pcapng. It's also retried a number of times after that. > > Oops, yes, I didn't catch the different seqno and thought it was all > retries of a single frame. > > > There is however no ACK from the client in response to it and it also never > > shows up in iwd. > > Right. Clearly this is because we actually leave the channel when we get > the response to the auth frame. > > I guess most cases we have the client much faster than the AP, so this > might never be an issue. I guess here you were saying the client wasn't > all that fast in responding. > > In fact the AP seems to take ~17.1ms from one frame to the other, and > the client ~20.4ms, though the client has some propagation delay through > the software stack too. > > I don't think this is really the right fix, but it might help: > https://p.sipsolutions.net/e852565303ad878b.txt Thanks for the help! I'll test the patch this evening. > > johannes