Re: [PATCH 3/8] Bluetooth: Add new structures for handling SMP Long Term Keys

[Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@openbossa.org>]

Hi Marcel,

On 14:42 Mon 30 Jan, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Vinicius,
> 
> > This includes a new list for storing the keys and a new structure used
> > to represent each key.
> > 
> > Some notes: authenticated is used to identify that the key may be used
> > to setup a HIGH security link. As the same list is used to store both
> > the STK's and the LTK's the type field is used so we can separate
> > between those two types of keys and if the key should be used when
> > in the master or slave role.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@openbossa.org>
> > ---
> >  include/net/bluetooth/hci.h      |    5 +++++
> >  include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h |   15 +++++++++++++++
> >  net/bluetooth/hci_core.c         |   31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h
> > index cb9097a..83f045a 100644
> > --- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h
> > +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h
> > @@ -274,6 +274,11 @@ enum {
> >  #define HCI_LK_SMP_LTK			0x81
> >  #define HCI_LK_SMP_IRK			0x82
> >  #define HCI_LK_SMP_CSRK			0x83
> > +/* The spec doesn't define types for SMP keys, the _MASTER suffix is implied */
> > +#define HCI_SMP_STK			0x80
> > +#define HCI_SMP_STK_SLAVE		0x81
> > +#define HCI_SMP_LTK			0x82
> > +#define HCI_SMP_LTK_SLAVE		0x83
> >  
> >  /* ---- HCI Error Codes ---- */
> >  #define HCI_ERROR_AUTH_FAILURE		0x05
> > diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> > index 896d9e4..06eab3f 100644
> > --- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> > +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> > @@ -88,6 +88,18 @@ struct bt_uuid {
> >  	u8 svc_hint;
> >  };
> >  
> > +struct smp_ltk {
> > +	struct list_head list;
> > +	bdaddr_t bdaddr;
> > +	u8 bdaddr_type;
> > +	u8 authenticated;
> > +	u8 type;
> > +	u8 enc_size;
> > +	__le16 ediv;
> > +	u8 rand[8];
> > +	u8 val[16];
> > +} __packed;
> > +
> >  struct key_master_id {
> >  	__le16 ediv;
> >  	u8 rand[8];
> > @@ -239,6 +251,8 @@ struct hci_dev {
> >  
> >  	struct list_head	link_keys;
> >  
> > +	struct list_head	ltks;
> > +
> 
> I am fine with this as well, but just to discuss this, don't you think
> calling this long_term_keys would be better? It makes it easier to read
> and makes it similar to link_keys.

Yeah, it looks more consistent with the longer name. Will change it.

> 
> Acked-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
> 
> Regards
> 
> Marcel
> 
> 

Cheers,
-- 
Vinicius