From owner-freebsd-wireless@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 17 19:21:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 311E8D95 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:21:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qe0-x22c.google.com (mail-qe0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD48511FB for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qe0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 1so4434906qee.31 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:21:17 -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=4sREOC2XTxn6Ut1K+SrPAk0QJ3mUVNjiXHH+FCn2d6k=; b=xYvtwYgwT6f7s7JlUdi18Ho9VEwzHuqUdBorFxczPLlGiWONtcGJdQ8qWekPsGMKwq Hzqo7tJRI12as14IT3mlgz1WHTtIgkiLz1TDKN9dmhAqAdQ4Xg1bjfi0DOmWnz6XV79p 2HbC+HK9ZiKadyfdkGs0OcC7ORYysk4HBRrb7rD/bLrqBbqb+qQkYI+PCtQAncM5Gi9a yg+QgYW8BnmNUmzNtfKNN/cyPpGegalemxsAQ8Js60avM2LpFGmlHU/LD9VA4OgTtlnF Evf2WV4/H5ooucbakg0ljPKUO6IJxwfplBpRZbuhBaz/T90hX+82Lz5OwiWIUf+IBy2n oMLQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.96.180 with SMTP id k49mr3283594qge.4.1389986476847; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:21:16 -0800 (PST) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.52.8 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:21:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20140111132338.7a7fc14c@X220.alogt.com> <20140111133610.313a4bca@X220.alogt.com> <20140112143614.3313f509@X220.alogt.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:21:16 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9Xn8GvBIbSSOj8H_M56l7LpJ-CQ 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: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:21:18 -0000 Hi, So does it still pause with traffic? Have you disabled bgscan? -a On 15 January 2014 18:04, Kevin Oberman wrote: > Sorry, It's been a little busy the past couple of days. > > No, I have had only one interface losing association and not recovering > since my first report. That one did not occur in conjunction with one of the > crypto events. Those seem to interrupt the network for about half a > second.Then it restores. Those issues still seem to crop up periodically, > about twice a day. I suspect that they me be linked to volumeof network > traffic , butI cannot be sure at this point. > > Here is the log during the failure yesterday: > Jan 14 23:13:27 rogue kernel: wlan0: _ieee80211_crypto_delkey: AES-CCM keyix > 0 flags 0x133 rsc 0 tsc 379793 len 16 > Jan 14 23:13:27 rogue kernel: wlan0: link state changed to DOWN > Jan 14 23:13:27 rogue wpa_supplicant[2669]: wlan0: CTRL-EVENT-DISCONNECTED > bssid=00:26:b8:67:c3:2d reason=0 > Jan 14 23:13:27 rogue kernel: wlan0: _ieee80211_crypto_delkey: NONE keyix > 65535 flags 0x3 rsc 0 tsc 0 len 0 > Jan 14 23:13:27 rogue kernel: wlan0: _ieee80211_crypto_delkey: AES-CCM keyix > 1 flags 0x136 rsc 411 tsc 0 len 16 > Jan 14 23:13:27 rogue kernel: wlan0: _ieee80211_crypto_delkey: AES-CCM keyix > 2 flags 0x136 rsc 3344 tsc 0 len 16 > Jan 14 23:13:27 rogue kernel: wlan0: _ieee80211_crypto_delkey: NONE keyix > 65535 flags 0x3 rsc 0 tsc 0 len 0 > Jan 14 23:13:29 rogue ntpd[1291]: sendto(199.7.177.206) (fd=25): Network is > down > Jan 14 23:14:22 rogue dhclient[2755]: My address (192.168.1.5) was deleted, > dhclient exiting > Jan 14 23:14:22 rogue wpa_supplicant[2669]: ioctl[SIOCS80211, op=26, val=0, > arg_len=0]: Operation not supported > Jan 14 23:14:22 rogue wpa_supplicant[2669]: wlan0: CTRL-EVENT-TERMINATING > Jan 14 23:14:23 rogue wpa_supplicant[3162]: Successfully initialized > wpa_supplicant > Jan 14 23:14:23 rogue kernel: wlan0: _ieee80211_crypto_delkey: NONE keyix > 65535 flags 0x3 rsc 0 tsc 0 len 0 > Jan 14 23:14:23 rogue kernel: wlan0: _ieee80211_crypto_delkey: NONE keyix > 65535 flags 0x3 rsc 0 tsc 0 len 0 > Jan 14 23:14:23 rogue last message repeated 3 times > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue wpa_supplicant[3163]: wlan0: Trying to associate with > 00:26:b8:67:c3:2d (SSID='babcom' freq=2437 MHz) > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue wpa_supplicant[3163]: wlan0: Associated with > 00:26:b8:67:c3:2d > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue kernel: wlan0: link state changed to UP > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue devd: Executing '/etc/rc.d/dhclient quietstart wlan0' > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue wpa_supplicant[3163]: wlan0: WPA: Key negotiation > completed with 00:26:b8:67:c3:2d [PTK=CCMP GTK=CCMP] > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue kernel: wlan0: ieee80211_crypto_newkey: cipher 3 flags > 0x3 keyix 65535 > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue kernel: wlan0: ieee80211_crypto_newkey: no h/w support > for cipher AES-CCM, falling back to s/w > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue kernel: wlan0: ieee80211_crypto_setkey: AES-CCM keyix > 0 flags 0x133 mac 00:26:b8:67:c3:2d rsc 0 tsc 0 len 16 > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue kernel: wlan0: ieee80211_crypto_newkey: cipher 3 flags > 0x6 keyix 1 > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue kernel: wlan0: ieee80211_crypto_newkey: no h/w support > for cipher AES-CCM, falling back to s/w > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue kernel: wlan0: ieee80211_crypto_setkey: AES-CCM keyix > 1 flags 0x136 mac ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff rsc 454 tsc 0 len 16 > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue wpa_supplicant[3163]: wlan0: CTRL-EVENT-CONNECTED - > Connection to 00:26:b8:67:c3:2d completed [id=1 id_str=] > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue dhclient: New IP Address (wlan0): 192.168.1.5 > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue dhclient: New Subnet Mask (wlan0): 255.255.255.0 > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue dhclient: New Broadcast Address (wlan0): 192.168.1.255 > Jan 14 23:14:24 rogue dhclient: New Routers (wlan0): 192.168.1.1 > > I have found a problem with my AP configuration that was the cause of the > performance issue, so that is not related to FreeBSD and is now fixed. > > Thanks, > Kevin > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> >> 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 > > > > > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired > E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com