From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (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 BB7F480B; Tue, 13 May 2025 11:46:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747136817; cv=none; b=siZFX3yZGq/I51K+rJ/YAdCrpsad5cPzcW+RvsxSEcl+CUCL3dEM8nrJDcDWP4u4tH4kxeD4RSKS6UgQhgEHN9ofsoh7RrMkvzaR+3vfzK1UtopIFExHyWIKoiWjEeMYWGcwy3NAYjCTRkcIfsxdpUBzXMHuPanCs0qPxFWFO94= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747136817; c=relaxed/simple; bh=39DgN9vO0bRlRqRRCgPbIKO6NwIWeagSGyorUVU4fLU=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=IYpP+fWVPVCIZtfKlnF/DSmpb6ZkuApxlCgWmT/ftNP3ZC3v1xx1vJ5H2FmPqIZKLpA1RV1L1R/dWo8RVKv0LFotccygsiYGe/fIKorXJQXJIGBKsLosK604Tl0sAACi2eCK9c5cPvp6E8ju5Is6pAX/LA9uJWNgLcGb1u7ZmPQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=VaOIbhiC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="VaOIbhiC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=39DgN9vO0bRlRqRRCgPbIKO6NwIWeagSGyorUVU4fLU=; t=1747136815; x=1748346415; b=VaOIbhiCwcYzUXXZkYv65/3UIIW6UP+lvyBOjWA6WyVEcNV EFh8IQd/rEcvUfKdBg+ZddXP/E4nzaL4aWCqUScJxcIXs5fEVI0HWdokvseByV1vV68snj+rqYvj1 g+oo2zQ2ECmcku9JV9soUwM1k82vWAbyCUsoRpOt4KScutjoXjGQmBdCtgQ01MQ2Cc908UwPUgCw9 2BUOgtcUWxovBJrHb3h8InY110GqYWgoM/MgRe8O5HRusduaBwV+y4Xzz4I2riwUlunbkKt+e+D6X ABrWhrT4QSpNSyk1faYP9bWA4qiYCBR2p8mxpoakRtp1FWK5NTa584Nj/WQF5FFw==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.1) (envelope-from ) id 1uEo60-00000005WwZ-0p4C; Tue, 13 May 2025 13:46:52 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: wifi: iwlwifi: SAE fails when AP sends confirm before STA From: Johannes Berg To: Jan Hendrik Farr Cc: James Prestwood , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Miri Korenblit , iwd@lists.linux.dev Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 13:46:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <4ffbeb94-ac19-4437-9d98-24981fe6c240@gmail.com> <15943a1f-0e5d-4705-b8ef-3f22fa3fe672@gmail.com> <902daf8802c723d72fff0155cd0638848ce1bc7f.camel@sipsolutions.net> <8a1c5172bc0fd9d2a33522294d1a2a4c4ceb313a.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.54.3 (3.54.3-1.fc41) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Tue, 2025-05-13 at 13:29 +0200, Jan Hendrik Farr wrote: >=20 > 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 nev= er > 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 johannes