Should Connman Receive All Supplicant State Changes?

Grant Erickson marathon96
Wed Jul 27 22:35:18 PDT 2011

On 7/27/11 9:55 PM, Sam Leffler wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Grant Erickson <marathon96 at> 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,
>> 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.


I am guessing that this is the thread?

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?



More information about the Hostap mailing list