From: Spoorthi Ravishankar Koppad <[email protected]>
As per Core specification 5.0, Vol 2, Part E, Section 7.8.38,
following code changes implements LE add device to Resolving List.
Signed-off-by: Spoorthi Ravishankar Koppad <[email protected]>
---
include/net/bluetooth/hci.h | 1 +
net/bluetooth/hci_request.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 127 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h
index c36dc1e..99a38cf36 100644
--- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h
+++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci.h
@@ -420,6 +420,7 @@ enum {
#define HCI_LE_SLAVE_FEATURES 0x08
#define HCI_LE_PING 0x10
#define HCI_LE_DATA_LEN_EXT 0x20
+#define HCI_LE_LL_PRIVACY 0x40
#define HCI_LE_PHY_2M 0x01
#define HCI_LE_PHY_CODED 0x08
#define HCI_LE_EXT_ADV 0x10
diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_request.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_request.c
index ca73d36..7ffc962 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/hci_request.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_request.c
@@ -672,7 +672,6 @@ static void add_to_white_list(struct hci_request *req,
cp.bdaddr_type = params->addr_type;
bacpy(&cp.bdaddr, ¶ms->addr);
-
hci_req_add(req, HCI_OP_LE_ADD_TO_WHITE_LIST, sizeof(cp), &cp);
}
@@ -681,7 +680,7 @@ static u8 update_white_list(struct hci_request *req)
struct hci_dev *hdev = req->hdev;
struct hci_conn_params *params;
struct bdaddr_list *b;
- uint8_t white_list_entries = 0;
+ u8 white_list_entries = 0;
/* Go through the current white list programmed into the
* controller one by one and check if that address is still
@@ -773,6 +772,110 @@ static u8 update_white_list(struct hci_request *req)
return 0x01;
}
+static void add_to_resolve_list(struct hci_request *req,
+ struct hci_conn_params *params)
+{
+ struct hci_cp_le_add_to_resolv_list cp;
+ struct bdaddr_list_with_irk *entry;
+
+ entry = kzalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!entry)
+ return;
+
+ cp.bdaddr_type = params->addr_type;
+ bacpy(&cp.bdaddr, ¶ms->addr);
+ memcpy(entry->peer_irk, cp.peer_irk, 16);
+ memcpy(entry->local_irk, cp.local_irk, 16);
+ hci_req_add(req, HCI_OP_LE_ADD_TO_RESOLV_LIST, sizeof(cp), &cp);
+}
+
+static u8 update_resolve_list(struct hci_request *req)
+{
+ struct hci_dev *hdev = req->hdev;
+ struct hci_conn_params *params;
+ struct bdaddr_list *b;
+ u8 resolve_list_entries = 0;
+
+ /* Go through the current resolving list programmed into the
+ * controller one by one and check if that address is still
+ * in the list of pending connections or list of devices to
+ * report. If not present in either list, then queue
+ * command to remove it from the controller.
+ */
+
+ list_for_each_entry(b, &hdev->le_resolv_list, list) {
+ /* If the device is neither in pend_le_conns nor
+ * pend_le_reports then remove it from the resolving list.
+ */
+ if (!hci_pend_le_action_lookup(&hdev->pend_le_conns,
+ &b->bdaddr, b->bdaddr_type) &&
+ !hci_pend_le_action_lookup(&hdev->pend_le_reports,
+ &b->bdaddr, b->bdaddr_type)) {
+ struct hci_cp_le_del_from_resolv_list cp;
+
+ cp.bdaddr_type = b->bdaddr_type;
+ bacpy(&cp.bdaddr, &b->bdaddr);
+ hci_req_add(req, HCI_OP_LE_DEL_FROM_RESOLV_LIST,
+ sizeof(cp), &cp);
+ continue;
+ }
+ if (hci_find_irk_by_addr(hdev, &b->bdaddr, b->bdaddr_type))
+ return 0x00;
+
+ resolve_list_entries++;
+ }
+
+ /* Since all no longer valid resolve list entries have been
+ * removed, walk through the list of pending connections
+ * and ensure that any new device gets programmed into
+ * the controller.
+ *
+ * If the list of the devices is larger than the list of
+ * available resolve list entries in the controller, then
+ * just abort and return filer policy value to not use the
+ * resolve list.
+ */
+
+ list_for_each_entry(params, &hdev->pend_le_conns, action) {
+ if (hci_bdaddr_list_lookup(&hdev->le_resolv_list,
+ ¶ms->addr, params->addr_type))
+ continue;
+
+ if (resolve_list_entries >= hdev->le_resolv_list_size) {
+ /* Select filter policy to accept all advertising */
+ return 0x00;
+ }
+
+ if (hci_find_irk_by_addr(hdev, ¶ms->addr,
+ params->addr_type))
+ return 0x00;
+
+ resolve_list_entries++;
+ add_to_resolve_list(req, params);
+ }
+
+ /* After adding all new pending connections, walk through
+ * the list of pending reports and also add these to the
+ * resolving list if there is still space.
+ */
+
+ list_for_each_entry(params, &hdev->pend_le_reports, action) {
+ if (hci_bdaddr_list_lookup(&hdev->le_resolv_list,
+ ¶ms->addr, params->addr_type))
+ continue;
+ if (resolve_list_entries >= hdev->le_resolv_list_size)
+ return 0x00;
+
+ if (hci_find_irk_by_addr(hdev, ¶ms->addr,
+ params->addr_type))
+ return 0x00;
+
+ resolve_list_entries++;
+ add_to_resolve_list(req, params);
+ }
+ return 0x02;
+}
+
static bool scan_use_rpa(struct hci_dev *hdev)
{
return hci_dev_test_flag(hdev, HCI_PRIVACY);
@@ -861,6 +964,7 @@ void hci_req_add_le_passive_scan(struct hci_request *req)
struct hci_dev *hdev = req->hdev;
u8 own_addr_type;
u8 filter_policy;
+ u8 ext_filter_policy;
/* Set require_privacy to false since no SCAN_REQ are send
* during passive scanning. Not using an non-resolvable address
@@ -878,6 +982,16 @@ void hci_req_add_le_passive_scan(struct hci_request *req)
*/
filter_policy = update_white_list(req);
+ if (hdev->le_features[0] & HCI_LE_LL_PRIVACY) {
+ ext_filter_policy = update_resolve_list(req);
+ if (!ext_filter_policy) {
+ /* If resolve list can not be used then check if
+ * whitelist can be used and set filter policy
+ * accordingly.
+ */
+ ext_filter_policy = filter_policy;
+ }
+ }
/* When the controller is using random resolvable addresses and
* with that having LE privacy enabled, then controllers with
* Extended Scanner Filter Policies support can now enable support
@@ -888,11 +1002,18 @@ void hci_req_add_le_passive_scan(struct hci_request *req)
* 0x02 (no whitelist) and 0x03 (whitelist enabled).
*/
if (hci_dev_test_flag(hdev, HCI_PRIVACY) &&
- (hdev->le_features[0] & HCI_LE_EXT_SCAN_POLICY))
+ (hdev->le_features[0] & HCI_LE_EXT_SCAN_POLICY) &&
+ (!(hdev->le_features[0] & HCI_LE_LL_PRIVACY)))
filter_policy |= 0x02;
- hci_req_start_scan(req, LE_SCAN_PASSIVE, hdev->le_scan_interval,
- hdev->le_scan_window, own_addr_type, filter_policy);
+ if (hdev->le_features[0] & HCI_LE_LL_PRIVACY)
+ hci_req_start_scan(req, LE_SCAN_PASSIVE, hdev->le_scan_interval,
+ hdev->le_scan_window, own_addr_type,
+ ext_filter_policy);
+ else
+ hci_req_start_scan(req, LE_SCAN_PASSIVE, hdev->le_scan_interval,
+ hdev->le_scan_window, own_addr_type,
+ filter_policy);
}
static u8 get_adv_instance_scan_rsp_len(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 instance)
--
1.9.1
Hi,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on linus/master]
[cannot apply to v5.3-rc4]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/spoorthix-k-intel-com/Add-support-to-use-resolving-list/20190812-233201
config: x86_64-allyesconfig (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-7 (Debian 7.4.0-10) 7.4.0
reproduce:
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
make ARCH=x86_64
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
Note: it may well be a FALSE warning. FWIW you are at least aware of it now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Better_Uninitialized_Warnings
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
net//bluetooth/hci_request.c: In function 'hci_req_add_le_passive_scan':
>> net//bluetooth/hci_request.c:1015:3: warning: 'ext_filter_policy' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
hci_req_start_scan(req, LE_SCAN_PASSIVE, hdev->le_scan_interval,
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hdev->le_scan_window, own_addr_type,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ext_filter_policy);
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
vim +/ext_filter_policy +1015 net//bluetooth/hci_request.c
966
967 void hci_req_add_le_passive_scan(struct hci_request *req)
968 {
969 struct hci_dev *hdev = req->hdev;
970 u8 own_addr_type;
971 u8 filter_policy;
972 u8 ext_filter_policy;
973
974 /* Set require_privacy to false since no SCAN_REQ are send
975 * during passive scanning. Not using an non-resolvable address
976 * here is important so that peer devices using direct
977 * advertising with our address will be correctly reported
978 * by the controller.
979 */
980 if (hci_update_random_address(req, false, scan_use_rpa(hdev),
981 &own_addr_type))
982 return;
983
984 /* Adding or removing entries from the white list must
985 * happen before enabling scanning. The controller does
986 * not allow white list modification while scanning.
987 */
988 filter_policy = update_white_list(req);
989
990 if (hdev->le_features[0] & HCI_LE_LL_PRIVACY) {
991 ext_filter_policy = update_resolve_list(req);
992 if (!ext_filter_policy) {
993 /* If resolve list can not be used then check if
994 * whitelist can be used and set filter policy
995 * accordingly.
996 */
997 ext_filter_policy = filter_policy;
998 }
999 }
1000 /* When the controller is using random resolvable addresses and
1001 * with that having LE privacy enabled, then controllers with
1002 * Extended Scanner Filter Policies support can now enable support
1003 * for handling directed advertising.
1004 *
1005 * So instead of using filter polices 0x00 (no whitelist)
1006 * and 0x01 (whitelist enabled) use the new filter policies
1007 * 0x02 (no whitelist) and 0x03 (whitelist enabled).
1008 */
1009 if (hci_dev_test_flag(hdev, HCI_PRIVACY) &&
1010 (hdev->le_features[0] & HCI_LE_EXT_SCAN_POLICY) &&
1011 (!(hdev->le_features[0] & HCI_LE_LL_PRIVACY)))
1012 filter_policy |= 0x02;
1013
1014 if (hdev->le_features[0] & HCI_LE_LL_PRIVACY)
> 1015 hci_req_start_scan(req, LE_SCAN_PASSIVE, hdev->le_scan_interval,
1016 hdev->le_scan_window, own_addr_type,
1017 ext_filter_policy);
1018 else
1019 hci_req_start_scan(req, LE_SCAN_PASSIVE, hdev->le_scan_interval,
1020 hdev->le_scan_window, own_addr_type,
1021 filter_policy);
1022 }
1023
---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation