On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 13:56 -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > > Does NM always use wpa_supplicant even in 0.6.5? I thought only later > > versions deferred everything to it. > > That was my assumption as well, and the reason I spent time > doing my patch. However, after your bug report, and before replying to > you, I went back looking at the code, to verify. > Well, as it happens, 0.6.5 uses wpa_supplicant for the scan if > it's available (more below). Hmm. ok. > Ask Jouni ? > For someone familiar with it, it's actually trivial, you just > have to follow the patch for Wireless Tools. But for somebody > unfamiliar, there is a huge learning curve. > That's classical : all the eyes are on the kernel, and nobody > care about userspace. We really should have more people familiar with > the guts of wpa_supplicant. Oh, I'm not too bad in wpa_supplicant. But I don't know how the workaround you came up with works. I guess I'll have to dig into that. You mentioned wpa_supplicant patches, do you still have those? > > > Ok, I see what's happening. That would just prevent you to set > > > authentication information, but that is not the root caause of your > > > problems. I'll puch a fix ASAP to John. > > > > Not sure, this seems to make wpa_supplicant unhappy enough to not even > > start doing anything. But then I configured it for WPA. > > Patch sent. Can't do harm anyway. I'll give that a try next week. > I'm currently stuck because I don't have a box handy to try > NetworkManager on, most of my boxes are without all the Gnome > overhead. I'll try to fix that, but it may take a few days. > Meanwhile, I made a few patch just for you for NetworkManager > 0.6.5. I could not even try to compile it (./configure dependancy), so > beware. > > The first patch fix the event parsing code to use the libiw > helpers. As you can see, this dramatically reduce the code > complexity. However, as this code does not use the payload of events, > it should not have been affected by the 32-64 bit issue. > > The second patch force NetworkManager to always use its own > scanning code. This is a quick hack, I don't know what will be the > interaction with wpa_supplicant and I don't know when this part of > NetworkManager was last tested. > In theory, with that change, you should start to see a list of > networks in NetworkManager. I may take a look, but my quad box isn't online and I usually don't have the things fixed. In any case, my networks are all RSN-protected so if wpa_supplicant can't talk to them that's little use to me. Hence, I'd rather see it fixed in wpa_supplicant. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
