From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Don't send RFC for Basic Mode if only it is supported From: Marcel Holtmann To: "Gustavo F. Padovan" Cc: Ville Tervo , "linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org" , "Gustavo F. Padovan" In-Reply-To: <20100731224144.GA29039@vigoh> References: <4C5020D7.7080005@nokia.com> <1280426444-20469-1-git-send-email-gustavo@padovan.org> <4C52CFDC.9070907@nokia.com> <20100731224144.GA29039@vigoh> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:56:31 -0700 Message-ID: <1280886991.12579.98.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Ville, > > On 07/29/2010 09:00 PM, ext Gustavo F. Padovan wrote: > > >From: Gustavo F. Padovan > > > > > >If the remote side doesn't support Enhanced Retransmission Mode neither > > >Streaming Mode, we shall not send the RFC option. > > >Some devices that only supports Basic Mode do not understanding the RFC > > >option. This patch fix the regression found with that devices. > > > > > > Yes this is better. After some research i found out that quite many > > old devices are not handling properly unknown options. > > Nice, we can put this upstream, do you agree? > > > > > However I found another regression. And this kind of patch is needed > > also. Otherwise the info rsp code is reading feat_mask from failed > > response (and does invalid memory access). > > > > > > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap.c > > index 0f34e12..1e174a4 100644 > > --- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap.c > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap.c > > @@ -3348,6 +3348,13 @@ static inline int > > l2cap_information_rsp(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cm > > > > del_timer(&conn->info_timer); > > > > + if (result != L2CAP_IR_SUCCESS) { > > + conn->info_state |= L2CAP_INFO_FEAT_MASK_REQ_DONE; > > + conn->info_ident = 0; > > + l2cap_conn_start(conn); > > + return 0; > > + } > > + > > if (type == L2CAP_IT_FEAT_MASK) { > > conn->feat_mask = get_unaligned_le32(rsp->data); > > > > Ack. Send a proper GIT patch then we can push this fix. am I getting this proper patch or not? Regards Marcel