From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Szymon Janc To: Johan Hedberg CC: "linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Remove device OOB data if it was discovered in band Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:17:43 +0100 Message-ID: <2151735.anmcCOIMjp@uw000953> In-Reply-To: <20121119150537.GA10702@x220> References: <1353336407-10863-1-git-send-email-szymon.janc@tieto.com> <20121119150537.GA10702@x220> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday 19 of November 2012 17:05:37 Johan Hedberg wrote: > Hi Szymon, Hi Johan, > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012, Szymon Janc wrote: > > OOB authentication mechanism should be used only if pairing process > > has been activated by previous OOB information exchange (Core Spec > > 4.0 , vol. 1, Part A, 5.1.4.3). Stored OOB data for specific device > > should be removed if that device was discovered in band later on. > > > > Signed-off-by: Szymon Janc > > --- > > > > This could also be done by userspace but would require calling remove remote > > OOB data mgmt command for every device found. Userspace could also track for > > which devices OOB data were added but this could be problematic as OOB data > > persists userspace restart. Doing it in kernel seems better. > > > > > > net/bluetooth/hci_event.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c > > index 9f5c5f2..cda5bac 100644 > > --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c > > @@ -1946,6 +1946,8 @@ static void hci_inquiry_result_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct sk_buff *skb) > > for (; num_rsp; num_rsp--, info++) { > > bool name_known, ssp; > > > > + hci_remove_remote_oob_data(hdev, &info->bdaddr); > > + > > bacpy(&data.bdaddr, &info->bdaddr); > > data.pscan_rep_mode = info->pscan_rep_mode; > > data.pscan_period_mode = info->pscan_period_mode; > > Why would you do this only in hci_inquiry_result_evt? What about > hci_extended_inquiry_result_evt and hci_inquiry_result_with_rssi_evt? > Maybe hci_inquiry_cache_update would be a better function to put this > into. Yes, I guess hci_inquiry_cache_update will be the right place to put this. Will send V2. Thx! > Johan -- BR Szymon Janc