Should Connman Receive All Supplicant State Changes?

Grant Erickson marathon96 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 28 01:35:18 EDT 2011


On 7/27/11 9:55 PM, Sam Leffler wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Grant Erickson <marathon96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Grant Erickson wrote:
>>> Is it expected that connman should receive and process all supplicant state
>>> changes? If so, I am seeing cases where the supplicant fails to signal or
>>> connman misses GROUP_HANDSHAKE always and occasionally ASSOCIATED,
>>> 4WAY_HANDSHAKE, and DISCONNECTED as below:
> 
>> I should have mentioned that this was with connman-0.76 and
>> wpa_supplicant-0.7.3, using the supplicant "new" DBus interface.
>> 
>> Thanks for the confirmation on IRC that the supplicant should absolutely
>> transmit and that connman should absolutely receive and process all
>> supplicant state change notifications (SCNs).
> 
> State change signals can be coalesced by supplicant. Search for an old
> thread on this list that I started about this when I wrote the new
> dbus api support for flimflam.

Sam:

I am guessing that this is the thread?

    http://lists.shmoo.com/pipermail/hostap/2010-September/021714.html

Regardless, thanks for the heads up; that's quite informative. Now I just
need to ascertain whether consistently missing GROUP_HANDSHAKE and
occasionally ASSOCIATED, 4WAY_HANDSHAKE and DISCONNECTED is having any
negative side-effects in connman.

Daniel, Samuel or Marcel, any initial thoughts relative to connman? Has this
already been accounted for in the gsupplicant design?

Best,

Grant




More information about the HostAP mailing list