From owner-freebsd-wireless@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 13 01:01:30 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0845D38A for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 01:01:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qa0-x233.google.com (mail-qa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6D701159 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 01:01:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id f11so1654985qae.24 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 17:01:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DY26QgZyMVbyCsb0BZT7Qv47PVtwtsUheSn15NXjvbs=; b=X+alTEr/OK5gCcr0o3JQQki540kIUvkXW+GTeHehieZeU4mRf45+7tBeai/jRfguI9 BV6Ar8f0IJEUTV+lRuOdJljW8K/PaVuIq7aIRRjSdmQlivXYsArts2OWBdRIxYutBeSN d/zckHh1iu2LmIf4WGSsmQWxpSZVLrBYhtRy5P3O+oIvCIBI2cmOzhIXp3+qBGSh1+9M QTjuzaXwp9YjOpJU0vsQaPLik7PClWEC8HLqFLckWGhvnxJo3DsYL/HeSuiR3LmfAFkH iIBJBxxO+qN8tt6hWGH0YP4jVBKvtQx1zxxFXv+TZ7ygFHe2T045XzPfP/EKZYVu80R2 6NOA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.15.74 with SMTP id j10mr34091200qaa.26.1389574888226; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 17:01:28 -0800 (PST) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.52.8 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 17:01:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20140111132338.7a7fc14c@X220.alogt.com> <20140111133610.313a4bca@X220.alogt.com> <20140112143614.3313f509@X220.alogt.com> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 17:01:28 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: u7_aCZY61PyJVvZdx9RBZHoDBWM Message-ID: Subject: Re: IWN performance very bad with 10.0-RC5 From: Adrian Chadd To: Kevin Oberman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: FreeBSD Wireless X-BeenThere: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussions of 802.11 stack, tools device driver development." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 01:01:30 -0000 Hi, Yup. Is this when things started getting strange? Were they okay before the replay detection kicked in? -a On 12 January 2014 14:45, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Erich Dollansky > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:45:59 -0800 >> Adrian Chadd wrote: >> >> > Please help dig up which change broke it. Even just test out the head >> > iwn code from 6 months ago. >> >> I came to a very strange result. I have iwn in the kernel since June >> 2012 using 10. I also have had run in the kernel of another machine >> since February 2011. I could not even add runfw to the kernel those >> days running some 8 stable. I kept it that way until now. >> >> run was always working. iwn gave problems starting between August and >> November of last year on my access point but still worked on other >> places. I used iwn to connect successfully to another wireless network >> mid November 2013. >> >> After adding the firmware to the kernel for both iwn and run, I could >> compile the kernel and iwn started to work. runfw did not break >> compilation. >> >> I wonder now if the iwn or run could even work without firmware or if >> the firmware was automatically loaded even when iwn or run where >> compiled into the kernel. >> >> Erich > > > Some things look odd here. I had been running with crypto debug for about 15 > hours when I captured the attached log. The things tha looks odd to me are > two series of "AES-CCM replay detected" errors. > Jan 12 00:54:03 rogue kernel: wlan0: [00:26:b8:67:c3:2d] AES-CCM replay > detected tid 16 > [rsc inc. by one 41 times until rsc = csc] > Jan 12 00:54:03 rogue kernel: wlan0: [00:26:b8:67:c3:2d] AES-CCM replay > detected tid 16 > > One VERY odd thing is the MAC address. It is one byte from being the address > of my Verizon/ActionTec wireless router. It is the only device on my network > that has an OID of 00:26:b8, but the last nibble is 28 while these errors > claim a MAC ending in 2d. > > The setkey statements with a MAC of FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF also look odd to be, > but I am pretty clueless about the meaning of most of the message, do it > might be fine, but looks strange. > > During this time I have not had the network completely hang and require an > interface restart. > > Does this provide anything useful? > > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired > E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com