On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 11:36 +0300, Eliad Peller wrote: > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Johannes Berg > <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 11:28 +0300, Eliad Peller wrote: > > > >> >> this scenario (deauth after disassoc) also sounds pretty unlikely... > >> > > >> > It seems that it happens when you ask the supplicant to "disconnect" via > >> > the CLI. > >> > > >> at least in my setup issuing a "disconnect" via the CLI ends only with > >> a deauth (as the respective code in wpa_supplicant/ctrl_iface.c seems > >> to call only wpa_supplicant_deauthenticate()) > > > > Hm. Maybe it was removing the interface then, or something. I don't > > remember, but Ilan said he had a way to trigger this. > > > > In any case, it seems we should handle it in some way? > > > well, it sounds rare enough to me. > maybe we can/should just drop it in this case (if there is no channel > context attached)? Maybe, yes. I just asked Jouni and he said he was moving towards *just* deauth, will probably do it at least for now. johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
