On Sun, 2023-09-24 at 22:43 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>
> Interestingly, for the above fault, there's no wpa_supplicant line just
> *before*. There's this *after*:
>
> sep 21 09:33:14 angela wpa_supplicant[1563]: wlan0: CTRL-EVENT-SCAN-FAILED ret=-5
Yeah I saw this, just wasn't sure where it was scanning, hence the
question. But I don't think it mattered.
> But an earlier one is preceeded by:
>
> sep 21 09:32:45 angela wpa_supplicant[1563]: wlan0: CTRL-EVENT-SCAN-FAILED ret=-5
> sep 21 09:32:45 angela kernel: iwlwifi 0000:a6:00.0: Microcode SW error detected. Restarting 0x0.
> [...]
Well I guess there was just another scan before that one :)
>
> > I think something like this, perhaps:
> >
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/scan.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/scan.c
> > @@ -2342,7 +2342,7 @@ iwl_mvm_scan_umac_fill_general_p_v12(struct iwl_mvm *mvm,
> > if (gen_flags & IWL_UMAC_SCAN_GEN_FLAGS_V2_FRAGMENTED_LMAC2)
> > gp->num_of_fragments[SCAN_HB_LMAC_IDX] = IWL_SCAN_NUM_OF_FRAGS;
> >
> > - if (version < 12) {
> > + if (version < 12 || !iwl_mvm_has_mld_api(mvm->fw)) {
> > gp->scan_start_mac_or_link_id = scan_vif->id;
> > } else {
> > struct iwl_mvm_vif_link_info *link_info;
>
> Interesting! In any case, the firmware is certainly out of date in
> Debian stable, and I guess it's to be expected that having it out of
> sync with the running kernel is a Bad Idea, it's just not something I've
> thought of before. :)
Did that patch help?
> Thanks for the debugging, I'll make sure to keep the firmware and kernel
> in better lockstep in the future!
Yes, you can ... but I mean, we still do want to consider this a bug, I
think, since we explicitly built the thing to load the older firmware.
It just gets _far_ less testing.
johannes
