Re: Network-Manager Trunk and Fedora 12

[Darren Albers <dalbers gmail com>]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 15:45 -0400, Darren Albers wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 20:13 -0400, Darren Albers wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Darren Albers <dalbers gmail com> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 21:47 -0400, Darren Albers wrote:
>> >> >>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com> wrote:
>> >> >>> > On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 22:59 -0400, Darren Albers wrote:
>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 20:10 -0500, Darren Albers wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> > On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 15:45 -0500, Darren Albers wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >> >> Are there any testing packages I can install to enable Bluetooth DUN
>> >> >>> >> >> >> support on Fedora 12?
>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> > The latest builds in koji should work; I've been doing some heavy
>> >> >>> >> >> > ModemManager work the past week or two and thus there aren't any builds
>> >> >>> >> >> > in a suitable state for F12 testing quite yet.
>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=157530
>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> > Dan
>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >> Sorry one further question, is it safe to use these builds with an
>> >> >>> >> >> older version of ModemManager?   Safe obviously being a relatively
>> >> >>> >> >> term considering it isn't even in testing yet but enough for someone
>> >> >>> >> >> to play with?
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> > Yes, they should be pretty safe for versions of NM from 2010 or very
>> >> >>> >> > late 2009.
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> > Dan
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Thanks Dan!  I actually tested it on Fedora 13 but ModemManager
>> >> >>> >> doesn't seem to like how the Blackberry responds.   I filed a bug
>> >> >>> >> report on it but as usual for Blackberry's they seem to respond a
>> >> >>> >> little differently that what you expect.  In this case it responds
>> >> >>> >> with:
>> >> >>> >> ** Message: (rfcomm0) opening serial device...
>> >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): probe requested by plugin 'Generic'
>> >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): --> 'AT+GCAP<CR>'
>> >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): <--
>> >> >>> >> '+GCAP:<CR><LF><CR><LF>OK<CR><LF>'
>> >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): --> 'AT+GCAP<CR>'
>> >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): <--
>> >> >>> >> '+GCAP:<CR><LF><CR><LF>OK<CR><LF>'
>> >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): --> 'AT+GCAP<CR>'
>> >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): <--
>> >> >>> >> '+GCAP:<CR><LF><CR><LF>OK<CR><LF>'
>> >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): --> 'ATI<CR>'
>> >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): <-- 'Research In Motion BlackBerry
>> >> >>> >> IP Modem<CR><LF><CR><LF>OK<CR><LF>'
>> >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): --> 'AT+CPIN?<CR>'
>> >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): <-- '+CPIN:
>> >> >>> >> READY<CR><LF><CR><LF>OK<CR><LF>'
>> >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): --> 'AT+CGMM<CR>'
>> >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): <-- 'RIM BlackBerry Device
>> >> >>> >> 4001507<CR><LF><CR><LF>OK<CR><LF>'
>> >> >>> >> ** Message: (rfcomm0) closing serial device...
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> I guess when it does this ModemManager doesn't recognize the response
>> >> >>> >> from CGMM (Model Query?) so it doesn't go any further?  CPIN seems to
>> >> >>> >> match what is expected in mm-generic-gsm.c but I can't seem to follow
>> >> >>> >> what it expects from CGMM and where that is checked.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > It's not responding to GCAP so we don't actually know whether it's a
>> >> >>> > CDMA or a GSM device.  What kind is yours?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > If yours is a GSM device, then that's great since it responds to AT+CPIN
>> >> >>> > correctly and we'll know it's a GSM device with recent ModemManager
>> >> >>> > versions.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > If yours is a CDMA device and it responds to AT+CPIN, then I hate the
>> >> >>> > world and we'll have to figure something else out :)
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Dan
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> You can save your hate for more important things like bad wireless
>> >> >>> cards then since it is a GSM device!   I can get a CDMA device to test
>> >> >>> if you want to know how that kind of device responds.  So if a more
>> >> >>> recent version of ModemManager is used it may recognize it as a Modem?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, which I'll build today, hopefully.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dan
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Great news, thank you!
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Dan,
>> >>
>> >> I tested the builds today and it detected the modem but when I
>> >> attempted to connect using Network Manager it failed and I see this in
>> >> /var/log/messages:
>> >> Mar 25 19:51:58 localhost dbus-daemon: Rejected send message, 2
>> >> matched rules; type="method_return", sender=":1.12" (uid=0 pid=1424
>> >> comm="/usr/sbin/bluetoothd) interface="(unset)" member="(unset)" error
>> >> name="(unset)" requested_reply=0 destination=":1.10" (uid=0 pid=1414
>> >> comm="NetworkManager))
>> >
>> > At what point does that failure come?  This could be caused by recent
>> > (well, year-old) dbus policy changes for unrequested reply messages
>> > which I'm not 100% sure how to get fixed...
>> >
>> > walters; what could be the cause of this sort of thing again?
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It comes after the AT commands are sent I think and it looks like it
>> is actually up when this kicks off.   Would you like the output of the
>> modemmanager plugin in debug or just the general messages from the log
>> around it?    What seems weird to me is shouldn't their be an
>> interface name defined somewhere so a dbus policy can be created to
>> allow it to send from that interface to another?
>
> easy selinux test: "setenforce 0" and try again and see if you get the
> error still.
>
> Dan
>
>
>

Already have selinux disabled, can't remember why I disabled it but I did.