Re: Ad-hoc vs user-created

[Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>]

On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 14:22 +0800, Bernard Blackham wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Some background first - I'm running network-manager 0.6.2 from
> Ubuntu dapper, and had issues associating with my ad-hoc network
> with an ipw2200 chipset. I have an ad-hoc network at home with a
> server that hands out DHCP leases, and it appears in the applet's
> drop-down menu. However when I click on it to associate, it fails
> (tries to, and eventually times out). A little investigation reveals
> that it never actually enters ad-hoc mode when trying to associate
> because I didn't personally create the network, thus it never sees
> the network.
> 
> Staring at the code of supplicant_send_network_config(), it appears
> that ad-hoc networks are assumed to be user created. Would it be
> possible to unblur the difference between ad-hoc and user-created?
> 
> As user-created implies ad-hoc, but not vice-versa, simply testing
> for ad-hoc instead of user-created in supplicant_send_network_config
> fixes my issues. (Specifically, setting ap_scan = "AP_SCAN 2", and
> setting ad-hoc mode). Patch attached (applies against current CVS
> too).

Right; user_created is a subset of Ad-Hoc.  We have to specialize
user_created because we're not running a DHCP _server_ locally, so
user_created networks will do auto-ip/link-local addressing.  Ad-Hoc
networks won't generally do that, although we do fall back to it if DHCP
fails for adhoc.

> Though if I've done something grossly wrong, feel free to flame me
> instead :)

Nope, patch looks good, other than a few things; first, we get to rename
stuff more extensively.  The user_created arguments for the
nm-ap-security* stuff should be changed to adhoc, and where we pass
user_created into the supplicant config function, we really do want
adhoc there instead since you can't use some WPA options with adhoc.

So I've cleaned up these small bits and will commit to HEAD and STABLE,
thanks.

Dan