Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 02:07:25 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com>, "freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org" <wireless@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: iwm rfkill Message-ID: <eebda8cc-b61e-1f53-f124-5217d51f6fc0@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <9d55db0d-fe7a-2695-ac3e-6668eab43622@FreeBSD.org> References: <15021eed-2d82-5391-0edc-8d328e3ba31d@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-VmonCxXxS-6WD=mxW1gdazZXHAyYdhTF9LrT%2BaqUrksR14g@mail.gmail.com> <9d55db0d-fe7a-2695-ac3e-6668eab43622@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20/05/2020 01:40, Andriy Gapon wrote: > On 18/05/2020 18:42, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 00:57, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I am trying to get my laptop fully functional and one of the things that >>> currently does not work as expected is a Wi-Fi / Radio special key. >>> It seems to be handled fully in hardware (but not 100% sure), but when I press >>> it only bluetooth is turned off, but Wi-Fi stays on. >>> >>> This is the hardware: >>> iwm0: <Intel(R) Dual Band Wireless AC 3168> mem 0xfe800000-0xfe801fff at device >>> 0.0 on pci3 >>> iwm0: hw rev 0x220, fw ver 22.361476.0, address xx >>> >>> When I press the key I see these messages: >>> iwm0: iwm_intr: rfkill switch, disabling interface >>> ugen0.6: <vendor 0x8087 product 0x0aa7> at usbus0 (disconnected) >>> ubt0: at uhub1, port 4, addr 5 (disconnected) >>> ubt0: detached >>> >>> However, ifconfig still shows that wlan0 is UP and RUNNING and the traffic keeps >>> flowing. >>> >>> So, it seems that the RF KILL bit gets set and it's detected by the driver, but >>> whatever the driver does is not enough to turn off the Wi-Fi. >>> Does anyone have any patches or suggestions or pointers (documentation, etc) ? >> >> It should be pretty easy to hack in; look at what iwn does? It should >> just do a software thing to disable the interface in software. > > Adrian, thank you very much for your suggestion. > Being a complete noob in this area, this is my stab at it: > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24923 Also, I see that there is some friction between how rfkill is handled at the driver / kernel level and how it gets (or doesn't get) known to userland. First, at least Intel wireless drivers use ieee80211_suspend_all / ieee80211_resume_all KPI when handling rfkill. Those calls end up clearing or setting IFF_DRV_RUNNING while userland mostly checks for IFF_UP. But that's not an issue actually -- I think that it's userland code that needs fixing. The issue is that the IFF_DRV_RUNNING changes become known to userland only by accident if at all. Specifically, if we consider wpa_supplicant, it listens for notifications coming via PF_ROUTE socket such as RTM_IFINFO. So, wpa_supplicant depends on (a) a notification getting generated in the first place; (b) the notification conveying correct information about an interface's state. As far as I can tell, net80211 layer does not try to do either of the above. E.g., in the case of ieee80211_stop_locked there is an RTM_IFINFO notification because of a link status change, but that notification by the state change that's performed before IFF_DRV_RUNNING is cleared. In the case of ieee80211_start_locked the situation is even worse. I wonder if ieee80211 should explicitly use rt_ifmsg() to post right notifications at right times. FWIW, I already have a patch for that and it seems to work. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?eebda8cc-b61e-1f53-f124-5217d51f6fc0>