LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Networking > Linux - Wireless Networking
User Name
Password
Linux - Wireless Networking This forum is for the discussion of wireless networking in Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-09-2008, 01:39 PM   #1
I am Jon's Liver
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2008
Location: Franklin, MA
Distribution: Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 3

Rep: Reputation: 0
ieee80211 install problems


Attempting to install ieee80211. I get the following errors when issuing the make command....

Any help much appreciated.

Jon.

[root@localhost ieee80211-1.2.18]# make

Checking in /lib/modules/2.6.24 for ieee80211 components...
make -C /lib/modules/2.6.24/build M=/usr/src/ieee80211-1.2.18 modules
make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.24'
CC [M]
/usr/src/ieee80211-1.2.18/ieee80211_module.o
/usr/src/ieee80211-1.2.18/ieee80211_module.c: In function ‘ieee80211_init’:
/usr/src/ieee80211-1.2.18/ieee80211_module.c:268: error: ‘proc_net’ undeclared (first use in this function)
/usr/src/ieee80211-1.2.18/ieee80211_module.c:268: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
/usr/src/ieee80211-1.2.18/ieee80211_module.c:268: error: for each function it appears in.)
/usr/src/ieee80211-1.2.18/ieee80211_module.c: In function ‘ieee80211_exit’:
/usr/src/ieee80211-1.2.18/ieee80211_module.c:297: error: ‘proc_net’ undeclared (first use in this function)
make[2]: *** [/usr/src/ieee80211-1.2.18/ieee80211_module.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [_module_/usr/src/ieee80211-1.2.18] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.24'
make: *** [modules] Error 2
 
Old 02-10-2008, 06:26 AM   #2
Hangdog42
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,803
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420
Quote:
Attempting to install ieee80211
May I ask why? Some context as to what you're trying to do and why you're taking this approach may help.
 
Old 02-10-2008, 10:31 AM   #3
I am Jon's Liver
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2008
Location: Franklin, MA
Distribution: Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 3

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Hi Hangdog...

Well my ultimate goal is to get connected wirelessly with my IPW2200 card. Research so far has indicated that I have to install the ieee80211 subsystem, IPW2200 drivers, IPW2200 firmware, as well is removing old versions of the ieee80211 subsystem from the kernel. The above problem occurred whilst trying to "make" ieee80211.

I'm running Fedora 8 with a 2.6.24 kernel.

thanks...
 
Old 02-10-2008, 11:19 AM   #4
Hangdog42
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,803
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420
Ok, you almost certainly don't need to replace the existing ieee80211 subsystem to use the ipw2200 drivers. I wish Intel would remove that suggestion because ieee80211 hasn't been needed to be replaced for quite a bit.

Now with that said, the 2.6.24 kernel introduced a new wireless stack and to be honest I don't know if the new stack will work with the ipw2200 drivers. Just try installing the drivers and firmware with a stock kernel and see if that works.
 
Old 04-14-2008, 05:32 AM   #5
mfluch
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hangdog42 View Post
Now with that said, the 2.6.24 kernel introduced a new wireless stack and to be honest I don't know if the new stack will work with the ipw2200 drivers.
I haven't followed the kernel development for a while. Which one is the new 802.11 networking stack (MAC80211 or IEEE80211)?
 
Old 04-14-2008, 07:30 AM   #6
Hangdog42
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,803
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420
The mac80211 is the new one. It is based on the code that Devicescape release a couple of years ago, so you may have seen it referred to as the devicescape stack or d80211.
 
Old 04-14-2008, 08:25 AM   #7
mfluch
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
Thanks for clearing this up! Lets see if I get my 3945ABC card running on my T60 soon...
 
Old 04-14-2008, 01:00 PM   #8
Hangdog42
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,803
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420
That really shouldn't be much of a problem. The iwl3945 driver is in the kernel (2.6.24 and later) or if you have an earlier kernel, Intel puts out a patch to add the mac80211 stack. I've been using that approach without a problem for quite some time now.
 
Old 04-16-2008, 08:32 PM   #9
Junior Hacker
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: North America
Distribution: Debian testing Mandriva Ubuntu
Posts: 2,687

Rep: Reputation: 61
Normally,
All I do for my ipw2200 is download the firmware version 3 and unpack it, copy all files ending in .fw to /lib/firmware and reboot. Then configure a connection.
But
Traditionally, if I want to use aircrack-ng and inject data, I would have to make some changes to the ipw2200 driver using the source code to enable packet injection. And it is usually advised to install the latest ieee802.ll source, during the 'make' step you are advised to remove the old.
But, but!
I was also told some time back that the ipw2200 drivers with the kernel would not need to be reconfigured to allow packet injection when the new mac802.11 is included.

I tripped on this thread because I Googled the same error as I just upgraded to the 2.6.24-1 kernel with Debian Lenny and was going through the same steps to compile my own ipw2200 module. Now that someone pointed out the 2.6.24 kernel has the mac802.11, I'm gonna remove the kernel, re-install it to get the mac802.11 stuff back as it's already been removed, and try packet injection without doing anything. If it works, I'll leave the 802.11 source replacement out, but still compile my own ipw2200 module so I can jack up my transmission power up by 50%, (so I can crack wep encryption from half a block away).
 
Old 04-17-2008, 07:22 AM   #10
Hangdog42
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,803
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junior Hacker
so I can crack wep encryption from half a block away

And what exactly is the point of posting this kind of crap? You've been around long enough to know that LQ frowns on this kind of behavior and quite frankly, your post seems to be nothing more than bragging on your l33t h4X0r skills.
 
Old 04-17-2008, 09:49 PM   #11
Junior Hacker
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: North America
Distribution: Debian testing Mandriva Ubuntu
Posts: 2,687

Rep: Reputation: 61
Hangdog42

Knowledge is power.

Some of the links I provide are from forums, easily accessible to/by anyone. This is where I got my knowledge on this topic of "needing to compile your own driver". Just thankful that a large number of society is kind enough to share their knowledge with me and the rest of the world, it is only fair that I return the favor.

You want to go around painting a false picture of yourself, that's your choice. I make it very clear who I am, and that's my choice, so lump it. It takes all kinds to make this world go around, and if you can accept this reality, you'll fare better in the long run. And don't for once try and convince me or any other readers that you're different, because all you'll accomplish is to frame that portrait and put it on display and have more readers see behind the mask. Because every other reader is no different from you and I.
We are all equal, and that's reality.

OH!
And my reasons for needing to crack wep from half a block away are very much legitimate. Unfortunately, I can't let the cat out of the bag, you'll have to speculate as to what the legitimate reason is. Your post tends to show me you have narrow vision, and you're not helping the OP with his/her question, rather, you're on a head hunt, and your testosterone level may be a little high.

I am Jon's Liver

I was able to circumvent that error you're getting by changing proc_net to init_net.proc_net wherever it occurs in the ieee80211_module.c file. But then ran into another error. I will submit the cure when I find it, if you find it first, submit it please.

Last edited by Junior Hacker; 04-17-2008 at 10:09 PM. Reason: Added reality comment
 
Old 04-17-2008, 09:53 PM   #12
Junior Hacker
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: North America
Distribution: Debian testing Mandriva Ubuntu
Posts: 2,687

Rep: Reputation: 61
Quote:
I was also told some time back that the ipw2200 drivers with the kernel would not need to be reconfigured to allow packet injection when the new mac802.11 is included.
This appears to be false information, you still need to configure the ipw2200 module to use radiotap to inject data, which means you still need to compile your own driver.

Last edited by Junior Hacker; 04-17-2008 at 09:55 PM. Reason: Spelling correction
 
Old 04-18-2008, 07:35 AM   #13
Hangdog42
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,803
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420
Quote:
Knowledge is power.
An old canard used by many to justify unethical practices. Yes, knowledge is a good thing, properly used. However, as you stated yourself, this sort of stuff is already out there and given LQ's stated preference that cracking not be discussed on this site, there is absolutely no reason to bring it up here. Your information about ipw2200 was good for all of one sentence, then you chose to start bragging about how good you are with aircrack, which has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's problem.

Quote:
You want to go around painting a false picture of yourself, that's your choice. I make it very clear who I am, and that's my choice, so lump it. It takes all kinds to make this world go around, and if you can accept this reality, you'll fare better in the long run. And don't for once try and convince me or any other readers that you're different, because all you'll accomplish is to frame that portrait and put it on display and have more readers see behind the mask. Because every other reader is no different from you and I.
We are all equal, and that's reality.
Huh? Talk about heading off on unrelated tangents. All I did was call you on a largely meaningless post that did nothing to further the conversation and headed in a direction of which LQ disapproves. If you can't take someone telling you your in the wrong, you shouldn't be posting on public boards.

Quote:
And my reasons for needing to crack wep from half a block away are very much legitimate. Unfortunately, I can't let the cat out of the bag, you'll have to speculate as to what the legitimate reason is.
Bullshit. There is not a single legitimate reason to crack WEP from any distance and the "I can't let the cat out of the bag" is typical of someone who has been caught doing something they know is wrong. It is common knowledge that WEP can be cracked, and cracked easily. The distance factor is completely and totally irrelevant. If someone has taken the time to encrypt their network, even with a sorry excuse protocol like WEP, they have stated a clear intention that no-one besides themselves should use it. If you need to prove to someone that using WEP isn't the brightest idea, there are significantly better and infinitely more ethical ways of doing it than cracking their key.

Quote:
Your post tends to show me you have narrow vision, and you're not helping the OP with his/her question, rather, you're on a head hunt, and your testosterone level may be a little high.
Actually, I was doing just fine helping the OP with their problem. Care to point out where I wasn't? It was you who brought in the totally unrelated comments and if you don't like the reaction, then don't post.
 
Old 04-18-2008, 07:55 AM   #14
Junior Hacker
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: North America
Distribution: Debian testing Mandriva Ubuntu
Posts: 2,687

Rep: Reputation: 61
Hangdog42

Quote:
The distance factor is completely and totally irrelevant. If someone has taken the time to encrypt their network, even with a sorry excuse protocol like WEP, they have stated a clear intention that no-one besides themselves should use it.
Did I say, "break into peoples networks without their permission from half a block away", or did I say, "crack wep from half a block away". Because one of these activities is illegal, the other is not. And if you can't handle that, get out of this conversation, because that's a fact Jack.
In this country, retailers are asked to point out the dangers of using wireless networks to customers wishing to set one up. What packets are sent in all directions are up for grabs by anyone to do with as they please, legally.
 
Old 04-18-2008, 08:29 AM   #15
Hangdog42
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,803
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420
Quote:
Did I say, "break into peoples networks without their permission from half a block away", or did I say, "crack wep from half a block away". Because one of these activities is illegal, the other is not. And if you can't handle that, get out of this conversation, because that's a fact Jack.
Look, "Jack", the fact is that what you are doing, permission or not(and no, I don't believe you have permission to do this), is completely and totally useless. Is WEP unsecure? Yes, common knowledge. Can someone futz with a wireless driver to boost power? Yes, common knowledge. Can someone combine the two and crack WEP from a distance? Gee, is water wet? And why would you crack a WEP key except to use it? To prove it can be done? Gee, that's only been done a few hundred thousand times. Any script kiddie can download the necessary tools and follow directions. How useful is that?

Quote:
In this country, retailers are asked to point out the dangers of using wireless networks to customers wishing to set one up.
And just what does this have to do with your WEP cracking activities? You don't have to actually crack a WEP key to explain to someone that it can be done. What you are doing is completely and totally pointless. It is useless. In fact it is worse than useless. One of the major reasons companies like Broadcom give for keeping drivers and firmware closed source (or not supporting Linux at all) is because they're afraid of being held responsible for crap like this. All you're doing is playing into their hands.

The FACT JACK is that this thread was originally about getting the ipw2200 driver working, and the thread was heading in that direction until you decided to start bragging about how l33t you are. Aircrack has nothing to do with getting the ipw2200 working. Noting. Nada. Zip. Bupkis. Get over yourself.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Problems installing ipw3945 and ieee80211 yttrium88 Linux - Newbie 3 10-31-2006 11:22 PM
Problems installing the ieee80211 subsystem HiIamBill Linux - Wireless Networking 2 07-16-2006 05:52 PM
Kernel rebuild IEEE80211 problems SlackGunner Linux - Laptop and Netbook 3 03-04-2006 12:24 PM
problem to make and install ieee80211 and ipw2200 Tje Linux - Wireless Networking 4 12-23-2005 09:21 AM
ieee80211 install problems FC4 pvtpilot Linux - Wireless Networking 3 10-30-2005 09:25 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Networking > Linux - Wireless Networking

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:56 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration