1:37 p.m.
Hey,
read about WPA-support with NetworkManager. How can i get this? I have
already wpa_suuplicant in use...
Roger
2:57 p.m.
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 20:37 +0100, Roger Grosswiler wrote:
Hey,
read about WPA-support with NetworkManager. How can i get this? I have
already wpa_suuplicant in use...
First you need a card with WEXT-compliant WPA support. That means using
the 'wext' driver of wpa_supplicant. Second, even if that works, the
card's driver needs to set the enc_capa field for it's iw_range
structure, which at least ipw does right now. The other drivers
in-kernel don't actually support WPA yet.
Dan
3:06 p.m.
Am Samstag, den 28.01.2006, 15:57 -0500 schrieb Dan Williams:
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 20:37 +0100, Roger Grosswiler wrote:
> Hey,
>
> read about WPA-support with NetworkManager. How can i get this? I have
> already wpa_suuplicant in use...
First you need a card with WEXT-compliant WPA support. That means using
the 'wext' driver of wpa_supplicant. Second, even if that works, the
card's driver needs to set the enc_capa field for it's iw_range
structure, which at least ipw does right now. The other drivers
in-kernel don't actually support WPA yet.
Dan
Thanks Dan,
so no chance with ndiswrapper
rog
3:08 p.m.
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 22:06 +0100, Roger Grosswiler wrote:
Am Samstag, den 28.01.2006, 15:57 -0500 schrieb Dan Williams:
> On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 20:37 +0100, Roger Grosswiler wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > read about WPA-support with NetworkManager. How can i get this? I have
> > already wpa_suuplicant in use...
>
> First you need a card with WEXT-compliant WPA support. That means using
> the 'wext' driver of wpa_supplicant. Second, even if that works, the
> card's driver needs to set the enc_capa field for it's iw_range
> structure, which at least ipw does right now. The other drivers
> in-kernel don't actually support WPA yet.
>
> Dan
>
Thanks Dan,
so no chance with ndiswrapper
Hmm, likely not. Is this from CVS?
Dan
3:19 p.m.
Am Samstag, den 28.01.2006, 16:08 -0500 schrieb Dan Williams:
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 22:06 +0100, Roger Grosswiler wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 28.01.2006, 15:57 -0500 schrieb Dan Williams:
> > On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 20:37 +0100, Roger Grosswiler wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > read about WPA-support with NetworkManager. How can i get this? I have
> > > already wpa_suuplicant in use...
> >
> > First you need a card with WEXT-compliant WPA support. That means using
> > the 'wext' driver of wpa_supplicant. Second, even if that works, the
> > card's driver needs to set the enc_capa field for it's iw_range
> > structure, which at least ipw does right now. The other drivers
> > in-kernel don't actually support WPA yet.
> >
> > Dan
> >
>
> Thanks Dan,
> so no chance with ndiswrapper
Hmm, likely not. Is this from CVS?
Dan
no, i use an older version of wpa_supplicant, but i had to compile it
against ndiswrapper, so this was no problem at all.
My hope was to have something standard from fedora. E.G Freebsd uses
ndis with wpa_supplicant as a standard.
Roger
4:51 a.m.
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 15:57 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
First you need a card with WEXT-compliant WPA support. That means
using the 'wext' driver of wpa_supplicant. Second, even if that
works, the card's driver needs to set the enc_capa field for it's
iw_range structure, which at least ipw does right now. The other
drivers in-kernel don't actually support WPA yet.
I believe the bcm43xx driver should support WPA.
--
dwmw2
6:53 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 21:51 +1100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 15:57 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> First you need a card with WEXT-compliant WPA support. That means
> using the 'wext' driver of wpa_supplicant. Second, even if that
> works, the card's driver needs to set the enc_capa field for it's
> iw_range structure, which at least ipw does right now. The other
> drivers in-kernel don't actually support WPA yet.
I believe the bcm43xx driver should support WPA.
Technically, yes. However, it needs a patch like the one attached (from
ipw2100) in bcm43xx_wx_get_rangeparams() to actually tell anything
(including NM) what it supports. This patch is >= WE-18 only.
Dan
6:12 a.m.
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 15:57 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 20:37 +0100, Roger Grosswiler wrote:
> Hey,
>
> read about WPA-support with NetworkManager. How can i get this? I have
> already wpa_suuplicant in use...
First you need a card with WEXT-compliant WPA support. That means using
the 'wext' driver of wpa_supplicant. Second, even if that works, the
card's driver needs to set the enc_capa field for it's iw_range
structure, which at least ipw does right now. The other drivers
in-kernel don't actually support WPA yet.
So if I've got a ipw2200 card how do I do WPA?
R.
--
"It's a fine line between denial and faith.
It's much better on my side"
6:58 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 23:12 +1100, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 15:57 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 20:37 +0100, Roger Grosswiler wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > read about WPA-support with NetworkManager. How can i get this? I have
> > already wpa_suuplicant in use...
>
> First you need a card with WEXT-compliant WPA support. That means using
> the 'wext' driver of wpa_supplicant. Second, even if that works, the
> card's driver needs to set the enc_capa field for it's iw_range
> structure, which at least ipw does right now. The other drivers
> in-kernel don't actually support WPA yet.
So if I've got a ipw2200 card how do I do WPA?
What does /usr/bin/nm-tool say for your card? It doesn't look like the
necessary (small) patch is in Linus' tree, nor in jgarzik's netdev-2.6
tree. I know I saw somebody post the patch to netdev though, so I'll
make sure it gets where it needs to go.
Dan
8:44 a.m.
nm-tool says the following for my ipw2200(and wired too!):
NetworkManager Tool
State: connected
- Device: eth0 ----------------------------------------------------------------
NM Path: /org/freedesktop/NetworkManager/Devices/eth0
Type: Wired
Active: yes
HW Address: 00:0A:E4:3D:A7:85
Capabilities:
Supported: yes
Carrier Detect: yes
Wired Settings
Hardware Link: yes
IP Settings:
IP Address: 192.168.1.103
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
Broadcast: 192.168.1.255
Gateway: 192.168.1.1
Primary DNS: 68.87.76.178
Secondary DNS: 68.87.66.196
- Device: eth1 ----------------------------------------------------------------
NM Path: /org/freedesktop/NetworkManager/Devices/eth1
Type: 802.11 Wireless
Active: no
HW Address: 00:13:CE:BE:8E:B0
Capabilities:
Supported: yes
Wireless Settings
Scanning: yes
WEP Encryption: yes
Wireless Networks (* = Current Network)
free4all: Infrastructure Mode, Freq 0.000 MHz, Strength
87%, Encrypted (WPA)
2WIRE970: Infrastructure Mode, Freq 0.000 MHz, Strength
29%, Encrypted (WEP)
2WIRE138: Infrastructure Mode, Freq 0.000 MHz, Strength
27%, Encrypted (WEP)
-----------------
nm-applet shows the 'networkworks', but selecting a WPA one borks.
Appears that nm-applet only (really) knows about WEP (ie. none of the
pull-downs have WPA entries).
tom
9:10 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 06:44 -0800, Tom London wrote:
- Device: eth1
----------------------------------------------------------------
NM Path: /org/freedesktop/NetworkManager/Devices/eth1
Type: 802.11 Wireless
Active: no
HW Address: 00:13:CE:BE:8E:B0
Capabilities:
Supported: yes
Wireless Settings
Scanning: yes
WEP Encryption: yes
The card doesn't support WPA, probably just for that one small patch.
nm-applet shows the 'networkworks', but selecting a WPA one
borks.
Appears that nm-applet only (really) knows about WEP (ie. none of the
pull-downs have WPA entries).
Yes, it won't show options that the card (or access point) don't
support.
Dan
9:26 a.m.
The patch you sent in the previous message was for an ipw2100.
I have an ipw2200. Same/different patch needed?
tom
10:25 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 07:26 -0800, Tom London wrote:
The patch you sent in the previous message was for an ipw2100.
I have an ipw2200. Same/different patch needed?
Different patch because it uses a slightly different driver. Though I'm
fairly sure that _somebody_ sent a patch to netdev for this, I can't
locate it and it's not upstream. I'll make sure it gets where it needs
to go though.
Dan
11:15 a.m.
On Monday 30 Jan 2006 15:10, Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 06:44 -0800, Tom London wrote:
> - Device: eth1
> ---------------------------------------------------------------- NM
> Path: /org/freedesktop/NetworkManager/Devices/eth1 Type:
> 802.11 Wireless
> Active: no
> HW Address: 00:13:CE:BE:8E:B0
>
> Capabilities:
> Supported: yes
>
> Wireless Settings
> Scanning: yes
> WEP Encryption: yes
The card doesn't support WPA, probably just for that one small patch.
> nm-applet shows the 'networkworks', but selecting a WPA one borks.
> Appears that nm-applet only (really) knows about WEP (ie. none of
> the pull-downs have WPA entries).
Yes, it won't show options that the card (or access point) don't
support.
Dan, I'm not sure what you mean by 'The card doesn't support WPA'.
My
laptop with the ipw2200 is dual-booting, and I have no problem setting
up WPA-PSK in XP. Do you mean that I shall not be able to when I put
FC on that laptop?
Anne
--
Registered Linux User No.293302 (http://counter.li.org/)
12:33 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 17:15 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Monday 30 Jan 2006 15:10, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 06:44 -0800, Tom London wrote:
> > - Device: eth1
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- NM
> > Path: /org/freedesktop/NetworkManager/Devices/eth1 Type:
> > 802.11 Wireless
> > Active: no
> > HW Address: 00:13:CE:BE:8E:B0
> >
> > Capabilities:
> > Supported: yes
> >
> > Wireless Settings
> > Scanning: yes
> > WEP Encryption: yes
>
> The card doesn't support WPA, probably just for that one small patch.
>
> > nm-applet shows the 'networkworks', but selecting a WPA one borks.
> > Appears that nm-applet only (really) knows about WEP (ie. none of
> > the pull-downs have WPA entries).
>
> Yes, it won't show options that the card (or access point) don't
> support.
>
Dan, I'm not sure what you mean by 'The card doesn't support WPA'. My
laptop with the ipw2200 is dual-booting, and I have no problem setting
up WPA-PSK in XP. Do you mean that I shall not be able to when I put
FC on that laptop?
That is correct, but it only requires one small non-invasive driver
patch to make WPA available. This patch should make FC5 final, so
you'll be fine once FC5 comes out.
Dan
12:38 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 13:33 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
That is correct, but it only requires one small non-invasive driver
patch to make WPA available. This patch should make FC5 final, so
you'll be fine once FC5 comes out.
No chance of getting this patch in before Test3 so that a wider range of
users will test it?
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
12:46 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 10:38 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 13:33 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> That is correct, but it only requires one small non-invasive driver
> patch to make WPA available. This patch should make FC5 final, so
> you'll be fine once FC5 comes out.
No chance of getting this patch in before Test3 so that a wider range of
users will test it?
Well, it first goes to wireless-2.6 (linville), then pulled to
netdev-2.6 (jgarzik), then pulled to torvalds-2.6 (linus) before davej
pulls it down for the Fedora Kernel. That's at least a week or so,
maybe more. Although the patch is quite trivial and doesn't affect
operation in any way, so maybe davej would accept it for Fedora kernels
before it hits Linus' tree.
Dan
12:56 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:46:42PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 10:38 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 13:33 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> >
> > That is correct, but it only requires one small non-invasive driver
> > patch to make WPA available. This patch should make FC5 final, so
> > you'll be fine once FC5 comes out.
>
> No chance of getting this patch in before Test3 so that a wider range of
> users will test it?
Well, it first goes to wireless-2.6 (linville), then pulled to
netdev-2.6 (jgarzik), then pulled to torvalds-2.6 (linus) before davej
pulls it down for the Fedora Kernel. That's at least a week or so,
maybe more. Although the patch is quite trivial and doesn't affect
operation in any way, so maybe davej would accept it for Fedora kernels
before it hits Linus' tree.
We need to lower the latency of getting patches like this into the Fedora kernel.
I'm toying with the idea of pulling in some of the -git trees directly.
If it's in a maintainers -git tree, chances are it's going to end up upstream
really soon, so I don't think this is diverging from our 'upstream first'
policy,
but more.. taking a short-cut.
Dave
1:02 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 13:56 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:46:42PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 10:38 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 13:33 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > That is correct, but it only requires one small non-invasive driver
> > > patch to make WPA available. This patch should make FC5 final, so
> > > you'll be fine once FC5 comes out.
> >
> > No chance of getting this patch in before Test3 so that a wider range of
> > users will test it?
>
> Well, it first goes to wireless-2.6 (linville), then pulled to
> netdev-2.6 (jgarzik), then pulled to torvalds-2.6 (linus) before davej
> pulls it down for the Fedora Kernel. That's at least a week or so,
> maybe more. Although the patch is quite trivial and doesn't affect
> operation in any way, so maybe davej would accept it for Fedora kernels
> before it hits Linus' tree.
We need to lower the latency of getting patches like this into the Fedora kernel.
I'm toying with the idea of pulling in some of the -git trees directly.
If it's in a maintainers -git tree, chances are it's going to end up upstream
really soon, so I don't think this is diverging from our 'upstream first'
policy,
but more.. taking a short-cut.
Yeah, I expect to send patches like this off to netdev-2.6/wireless-2.6
first of course (which I've just done). What's the usual lag time
between when something is in netdev and then shows up in the upstream
kernels? I think its about 1 - 2 weeks, depending. Does that make the
FC5 window?
Dan
1:12 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:02:08PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> We need to lower the latency of getting patches like this into
the Fedora kernel.
> I'm toying with the idea of pulling in some of the -git trees directly.
> If it's in a maintainers -git tree, chances are it's going to end up
upstream
> really soon, so I don't think this is diverging from our 'upstream
first' policy,
> but more.. taking a short-cut.
Yeah, I expect to send patches like this off to netdev-2.6/wireless-2.6
first of course (which I've just done). What's the usual lag time
between when something is in netdev and then shows up in the upstream
kernels?
There's no real pattern to it., other than "whenever Jeff feels there's
enough pending stuff, or some importnat bits turned up"
The same is true for other maintainers too. Some of them sit on stuff and
only push bits to Linus once per point release, which is a real pain if there's
a small bugfix there that only a minority need, but the maintainer deemed
'not worth pushing again'. And then there are the rock star maintainers that
seem to push changes as soon as they come in. (or after a short spin in -mm)
I think its about 1 - 2 weeks, depending. Does that make the
FC5 window?
For this patch, I'll just merge it in todays build.
Dave
1:32 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 14:12 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:02:08PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> > We need to lower the latency of getting patches like this into the Fedora
kernel.
> > I'm toying with the idea of pulling in some of the -git trees directly.
> > If it's in a maintainers -git tree, chances are it's going to end up
upstream
> > really soon, so I don't think this is diverging from our 'upstream
first' policy,
> > but more.. taking a short-cut.
>
> Yeah, I expect to send patches like this off to netdev-2.6/wireless-2.6
> first of course (which I've just done). What's the usual lag time
> between when something is in netdev and then shows up in the upstream
> kernels?
There's no real pattern to it., other than "whenever Jeff feels there's
enough pending stuff, or some importnat bits turned up"
The same is true for other maintainers too. Some of them sit on stuff and
only push bits to Linus once per point release, which is a real pain if there's
a small bugfix there that only a minority need, but the maintainer deemed
'not worth pushing again'. And then there are the rock star maintainers that
seem to push changes as soon as they come in. (or after a short spin in -mm)
> I think its about 1 - 2 weeks, depending. Does that make the
> FC5 window?
For this patch, I'll just merge it in todays build.
Any chance to grab the airo patch too?
Dan
3:11 p.m.
FWIW, here's the patch for ipw2200.c against 2.6.16-rc1-mm2.
You can save the patch as a "patchfile" and then:
patch -p0 -l < patchfile
This patch should apply fine to other recent kernel sources.
diff -u ipw2200.c.orig ipw2200.c
--- ipw2200.c.orig 2006-01-30 13:01:52.000000000 -0800
+++ ipw2200.c 2006-01-30 13:05:47.000000000 -0800
@@ -8342,6 +8342,9 @@
IW_EVENT_CAPA_MASK(SIOCGIWAP));
range->event_capa[1] = IW_EVENT_CAPA_K_1;
+ range->enc_capa = IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA | IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA2 |
+ IW_ENC_CAPA_CIPHER_TKIP | IW_ENC_CAPA_CIPHER_CCMP;
+
IPW_DEBUG_WX("GET Range\n");
return 0;
}
4:30 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 13:11 -0800, Miles Lane wrote:
FWIW, here's the patch for ipw2200.c against 2.6.16-rc1-mm2.
You can save the patch as a "patchfile" and then:
patch -p0 -l < patchfile
This patch should apply fine to other recent kernel sources.
diff -u ipw2200.c.orig ipw2200.c
--- ipw2200.c.orig 2006-01-30 13:01:52.000000000 -0800
+++ ipw2200.c 2006-01-30 13:05:47.000000000 -0800
@@ -8342,6 +8342,9 @@
IW_EVENT_CAPA_MASK(SIOCGIWAP));
range->event_capa[1] = IW_EVENT_CAPA_K_1;
+ range->enc_capa = IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA | IW_ENC_CAPA_WPA2 |
+ IW_ENC_CAPA_CIPHER_TKIP | IW_ENC_CAPA_CIPHER_CCMP;
+
IPW_DEBUG_WX("GET Range\n");
return 0;
}
Aha, so that's where it was :) I submitted it upstream to netdev today,
so it should go in soon if somebody hasn't beaten me to it.
Dan
12:52 p.m.
On Monday 30 Jan 2006 18:33, Dan Williams wrote:
That is correct, but it only requires one small non-invasive driver
patch to make WPA available. This patch should make FC5 final, so
you'll be fine once FC5 comes out.
OK - that should be fine, thanks.
Anne
--
Registered Linux User No.293302 (http://counter.li.org/)
6654
days inactive
6656
days old
23 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Anne Wilson -
Dan Williams -
Dave Jones -
David Woodhouse -
Jesse Keating -
Miles Lane -
Rodd Clarkson -
Roger Grosswiler -
Tom London