Ya...

FYI
https://github.com/kaloz/mwlwifi/issues/105

while i understand this is on going development for the wrt1900x router. im still a but surprised that we are at what? like two years past the router release and there still seem to be lingering issues with the wireless drivers among other things...
How long does it usually take for a fully optimized 3rd party firmware to be out there?

@alirz

That's a good question, but it should be asked in Linksys forums / support.

nitroshift

Why cuz they are giving us crappy drivers   ?

VBG

BTY

Code name for the WRT3200acm is: rango

I lost you there buddy....

Comes with a Depp bobble head antenna, but foobar blob.

Edit: Let's not forget the v1,v2 flavours of the ACS and 1200.

(Last edited by anomeome on 6 Sep 2016, 21:19)

Now we have...

WRT1900AC(v1) - Mamba
WRT1900AC(v2) - Cobra
WRT1900ACS - Shelby (v1 v2)
WRT1200AC - Caiman (v1 v2)
WRT3200ACM - Rango

(Last edited by gufus on 6 Sep 2016, 22:36)

Slightly more than netifd broke with 4.8-rc5 and with that a slightly bigger release as well

Someone knows how to fix this message?

daemon.notice netifd: radio1 (1696): command failed: Not supported (-95)

@shm0
It is annoying and has been in the log for quite some time. But it still seems to work ok here.
Tue Sep  6 20:34:30 2016 daemon.notice netifd: radio1 (1258): command failed: Not supported (-95)
Tue Sep  6 20:34:30 2016 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due to ifup of vpn0 (tun0)
Tue Sep  6 20:34:30 2016 daemon.notice netifd: radio0 (1257): command failed: Not supported (-95)
And another one.
Tue Sep  6 20:34:26 2016 kern.err kernel: [    1.202903] cpu: dev_pm_opp_of_cpumask_add_table: couldn't find opp table for cpu:0, -19
Tue Sep  6 20:34:26 2016 kern.err kernel: [    1.212496] cpu: dev_pm_opp_of_cpumask_add_table: couldn't find opp table for cpu:1, -19

Most people do not utilize secure passwords, with the most commonly utilized passwords today still being "password", "1234", "9999", & "2580"... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink.  Most don't even secure their WiFi networks with a secure enough password, so if most don't do it for WiFi [let alone their PC or phone], it's a good bet they're not doing it for an SSH session either.

Most also don't employ decent anti-malware and firewall rules (there's a reason everyone receives multiple phishing emails every day... they work), which is what I've been trying to repeatedly convey... it doesn't matter if you're utilizing  the root user for an SSHFS mount on a LAN, if the end user, or end device, doesn't employ good IPsec habits/policies; since we know most do not, one could secure it with the two meter DNA strand contained within every human cell and it still wouldn't be a good idea to do.

If you, personally, want to use the root account to mount a SSHFS mount as a network share, all the more power to you... but it's not okay to be telling other users to do the same thing without also informing them of the risks involved... risks you seem to be under the impression don't exist.  Additionally, there are safer, and far more efficient, means of mounting a network share... Samba for one.

Are you intentionally being thick?  Samba utilizes Samba users and Samba passwords, of which are encrypted

• Samba user is added to /etc/samba/smbpasswd, via the smbpasswd command, such as:
  JW0914:1000:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:--hex string--:[U          ]:LCT-00000001:

• Samba user would then be added as a file system user (same name) to /etc/passwd, such as:
  JW0914:x:1000:1000:Samba User:/var:/bin/false

• As well as a group name for the file system user under /etc/group, such as:
  JW0914:!:1000:JW0914

• After which the file system user and group would then be used to own the directory of the Samba share, and permissions changed to 770 recursively

Root is supposed to run Samba, but root is not supposed to be utilized to login to the Samba share and provide the Samba user with root privileges.

Where did I dismiss SSHFS as a solution at (I utilize it quite frequently)?  It serves a purpose in specific environments, but should not be utilized for a network share on a LAN with OpenWrt without additional end user configuration.  Again, Samba provides a far more efficient means of accessing a local network share... that is the purpose of Samba after all.

If you're fine with that, all the more power to you; however, most would not be fine with 10MB/s (~80mbit/s).  I routinely reach throughput speeds on my FreeNAS & OpenWrt Samba shares in the 124MB/s range [~992mbit/s] over LAN, and in the 105MB/s [~840mbit/s] range over WiFi.

Normally one would utilize SCP or SFTP on LAN with OpenWrt for transfering files to their router's internal file system, especially if what's being transferred needs to be done over an encrypted connection (certificate keys for instance).

You must not be familiar with FreeNAS or FreeBSD then... SSHFS is not used for every day network shares because it's not efficient to do so (much the same as we no longer type on typewriters).  It works great for remote maintenance on servers, as it unburdens the remote server from having to have network shares (or client compatibility with shares) and/or a VPN configured; as well as for transferring files to/from a router's internal file system, guaranteeing the data remains secure in transit.

(Last edited by JW0914 on 7 Sep 2016, 05:28)

@sera
As I was going to build an image today with the latest 4.4.20 lts kernel, I pulled and connected the mamba to serial to flash and test your latest patch-set. Built and flashed the 4.4.20 release, followed by 4.8-rc5 UBI factory image which I have left running. So far no failure with all wifi devices on-line, new 4.8 kernel? I have not tried the 4.7.2, but since there is also a 4.7.3 today, I'll probably just leave that out.

@Villeneuve

At least Linus complained about the size of of rc5, so a lot of changes. It also broke 5 packges ... If things now work all the better.

I also started with the next milestone, making packages musl compatible. So there is something to actually test

Anyone who can help, please?

I don't want to keep the router around for much longer, but rather return it if the V1 is to be preferred...

Thanks!

Thanks. I need the config-4.7 and patches-4.7 for me to upgrade kernel to 4.7.3 sadly. I upgraded to kernel .4.4.20 and that worked perfectly no worries. But not in the 4.7.3 case.

I had a look at seras latest swrt and he/she has a the kernel 4.7.3 support .patch in there. I tried to copy and paste the changes to the relevant areas but didnt work.

@sara Any chance of a .patch or changes that I can use to change to kernel 4.7.3? Or upload the configs and folders.?

Thanks Mate.

(Last edited by thelakesclub on 8 Sep 2016, 10:36)

@thelakesclub

It's all there, just create a local branch from openwrt/master and apply _all_ patches using git am. For convenience there is then a script swrt/build_dist.bash.

Basic steps are:

git clone https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt.git
cd openwrt
git checkout -b swrt-2016-09-07 origin/master
git am <path to patches>/*

I cannot thank you enough Sera. Thank you so much. Finally I got a successful kernel 4.7.3 build.

I bought a brand new WRT1200AC.

On the label it says "Rev. A02"

Is this a known (and supported) revision? In the documentation so far I only read about "V1" and "V2" and I doubt "A02" means "V2". Is this revision new or did anybody hear of this A02?

@thelakesclub

You're welcome. "Finally" sounds desperate, what is there that you want that urgently.

@palm4711

If you use Kaloz' builds (see wiki) it doesn't matter if v1 or v2. The Code Name is Caiman for both and they share the image.

Thanks, but are you sure this A02 is not something completely new? Neither V1 or V2?

Did you open the box? Have you started using the router? Which is the firmware version you have on your device? Should that not allow to identify the revision? If it's 2.0.4.174182 it must be V2, if it's 1.0.x it's V1?

If you live in the US it's a V2 and a V1 otherwise. It's very unlikely there is a V3 we haven't heard of yet. As a reference my wrt1900acs-eu V1 says A00.

"Which is the firmware version you have on your device?"

The label on the back reads:

WRT1200AC
8830-21687
Rev. A02

It's freshly bought in the EU.

I just fired it up. The pre-installed firmware is 1.04.167471

Then it's a V1.