From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qt1-f177.google.com (mail-qt1-f177.google.com [209.85.160.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92F5F19ABBB; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.177 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728664595; cv=none; b=YK1CeQ9sKOxbZwXyhAUOMmNO1pTRGXvwBwAwhUwywAUe1Z0Asmi/svHHnp6aSUb6LXfUxI7s4Nm/uFGmfflr+Ci3s83VgUVHzpuxJxw2KULRPT0ncMoEJiuSLvVt51ssCnRTUpYFZPhhGkJkCuFKSQkZx7wsLtk2InA1pedqh9U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728664595; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fRfQSncXuagBn4y3+lRD4uIyuFJFXMo6bVLzVfTEijs=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=uMAt8F2kgT6x6NVfMs9hq/VY7NrI3MrHIVaY9B4SZHn8Yjk7L1NP6HyhXXCBaV371d9g/D1eF9BnaJM8ypuecoXaO3qjMCPQEQcko19TLQdv2y1JjgJW+rfroY2hfyJVfbof/qz72Rs6Ie7eQU/gVa4dF/L3xtIr2tPzdOpumes= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=DgPlXfy4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.177 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="DgPlXfy4" Received: by mail-qt1-f177.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4604d8f1622so5747911cf.1; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 09:36:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1728664592; x=1729269392; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8EICz9GuOyoUBn41No93e0bSvSxbKxa69NwvBJHCFQU=; b=DgPlXfy4/myMTTeSFFDTxAPldqcZh59EvJPPfGQ6zZPVVatclRj7rkOiGXtaFYp4qa o5CjXuVESZLbN/C/T048nL6E3Qu9kCC9gCGkY0DcH9zJizRfC8HlhLqfpHUVBObNlLm/ Qa0x3ERbnZNcgT35g1jHizad6bSEeyq4Cp7qHX/3eFoyUlNNzZ3NKHbyk3aoEZLbCNKD 0YVu9c/xO2Zv8ER/7gvmgnMXfZvcdPDKnMRdpFSiugyEPAvzIjTguDU5S4/W/dwF20oY giP3jt8BgpTQZond3dXsCdjY775RURmAzZQzyZnwWOEd9smuseNWtgr9SJR6tLOkiKh9 eMGA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1728664592; x=1729269392; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8EICz9GuOyoUBn41No93e0bSvSxbKxa69NwvBJHCFQU=; b=SCRGakemgHuS0+UVn9+1WDrYiVZoomw+lwbEQ0ru5aDV5remXYuobztMqK2popFfbR N8ayV1tcmNxJy12QKwMK3S9zZWO/LlbZgWdHw6M076Kdd433NainQQisVIwcur4inZpq 2VaV8ruCj0kL0yBej6G3oWGiETJYEitO8EPvfQcQWuWBwkOL7AR48oFoULqnVxqIiEoM gwCcxv5+u+o0ljxNA4YgMEd8rOfQKG11BRLhN8wVDyHAtNVwzD1dIgPSc7ISK+lI/jm9 HI7VX5FYTOnGxLk/+8AELq+bMueHoqJL1JzsraGDt+UIABSN9OmnEvpHSe8DmSHyLNAt 9G/A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXd5Xb4NnAmahpdB505/AexF4FJX6+AyHJKnqZhsO5LJl82mLJ96kp0Vd+F0nami5oRZR6BL08giXVyWyc=@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCXuTk4q1YhtH1j8QUG3OWa5wsBLdxQewSolrJ2NrtjlN9P6kZfBjN+KyIQCiV24TXp7NgPYYxaZqHjujWWanoQ=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YykPQTkR2x3IH3fMvOEOCU4oZKDb7kMLILolcRwNzIYyQVYvJIh CPoJn1BxBzFwAtBCnPbhvXGsPWOBRpwg4Y8jyyitQlclc8lL1SJlEwIKNg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG44fWfmR7QcPGgn1sQ4iDCOvZwINz0uufu8zxEXB5D5LFVJ4ttB1zQ8SXb+8eLL+1E1a9hew== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1f10:b0:458:5716:fbd8 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4604bbcecf9mr54546141cf.32.1728664592363; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 09:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.121.195] ([152.193.78.90]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d75a77b69052e-46042895a9csm16691971cf.91.2024.10.11.09.36.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Oct 2024 09:36:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7ccfcd67-986b-40a3-8311-73b5335f980c@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 09:36:29 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: failed to remove key (0, ce:ce:1e:27:bb:e0) from hardware (-110) (ETIMEDOUT) To: Paul Menzel Cc: Kalle Valo , Baochen Qiang , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org, LKML References: <8be8619d-f09f-43b2-ada8-2fca2a7d8ea5@gmail.com> <8eda1bd2-88fc-4262-aec0-6f88a73797ef@molgen.mpg.de> Content-Language: en-US From: James Prestwood In-Reply-To: <8eda1bd2-88fc-4262-aec0-6f88a73797ef@molgen.mpg.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Paul, On 10/11/24 5:48 AM, Paul Menzel wrote: > Dear James, > > > Am 04.09.24 um 16:09 schrieb James Prestwood: > >> On 9/4/24 3:45 AM, Paul Menzel wrote: > >>> Linux 6.11-rc6+ logged the warning below when resuming from ACPI S3 >>> (or unloading and loading the `ath10k_core`/`ath10k_pci` modules) >>> having been connected to an AVM network: >>> >>>     wlp58s0: failed to remove key (0, ce:ce:1e:27:bb:e0) from >>> hardware (-110) >>> >>> Error code 110 is the value for ETIMEDOUT. I saw James patch [1], >>> and applied it, and the error is still there (as expected). >> >> My patch won't actually fix the timeout, I just lowered the time that >> ath10k would wait before it continued which fixed some >> incompatibility on the AP side of things. Based on your logs though, >> it appears you already got disconnected before the failure to remove >> the key... > > I am still applying your patch manually on the current master branch, > and it looks like it hasn’t still been reviewed. Maybe it’s due to the > RFC tag. Do you plan on moving it ahead? There was another thread, which I cant seem to find where Kalle had mentioned the RFC patch. IIRC Kalle had said the proper fix is in the firmware, and would rather not take this patch upstream if we can get the firmware addressed. And I would have to agree this is the best approach if this is an option. This RFC patch was merely a workaround for some odd behavior with Cisco APs that one of our customers was using, where the APs would actually reject roams if they took too long, hence why reducing the timeout "fixed" the problem. Last I checked your situation was different, your device got disconnected _then_ failed to remove the key. If this is the case my RFC patch isn't going to really change much, apart from fail in 1 second vs 3 seconds. Thanks, James > > > Kind regards, > > Paul > > >>> [1]: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240814164507.996303-1-prestwoj@gmail.com/