Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1233136775.2139.3.camel@violet> References: <496895AB.4050902@nokia.com> <1232061946.15331.1.camel@californication> <1232099244.27758.4.camel@californication> <1232536752.26470.1.camel@californication> <1233136775.2139.3.camel@violet> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 02:18:38 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] Some kernel changes From: jaikumar Ganesh To: Marcel Holtmann Cc: Nick Pelly , Ville Tervo , linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, johan.hedberg@nokia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 List-ID: Hi Marcel, On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Jaikumar, > >> >> >>>>> why do you wanna set AUTH_PENDING again. That is not needed we only >> >> >>>>> wanna know once encryption comes back on. If no in time, then we just >> >> >>>>> disconnect the link. That simple. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> b) I also see that we are not clearing the timer and hence after >> >> >>>>>> RFCOMM_AUTH_TIMEOUT period expires we bring down the RFCOMM connection >> >> >>>>>> even though the encryption has been established. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Good catch. Fixed it. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Cool. Can you upload it to bluetooth-testing git ? I saw a related >> >> >>>> problem while looking at the timer issue and wanted to see if the fix >> >> >>>> takes care of it. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I am in the process in doing so, but there are other important things >> >> >>> that need to be done first. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry to push you on this, is this patch been uploaded ? >> >> > >> >> > since a few days now. Check the bluetooth-testing.git and it is even rebased >> >> > against 2.6.29-rc2. >> >> > >> >> I applied the patches and I see that we actually don't pause the >> >> RFCOMM tx traffic because we don't check on >> >> the RFCOMM_SEC_PENDING flag when sending the tx packets in rfcomm_process_dlcs. >> >> I verified this using the "attest" command - we keep sending RFCOMM >> >> traffic even though encryption is off. >> >> >> >> Please look at the patch attached. >> >> >> >> Also should we drop the "rx" packets too when the encryption is dropped ? >> > >> > can you get me a version with a proper commit message. Just the subject >> > is not gonna be good enough. >> > >> >> Sorry, its attached. Also like mentioned above the patch checks only >> while sending tx packets ? >> Should we drop "rx" packets also ? > > patch looks fine to me, but you need to fix/revert the comment change ;) > > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c b/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c > index ae2ecaa..73ffc0c 100644 > --- a/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c > +++ b/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > -/* > +f* > RFCOMM implementation for Linux Bluetooth stack (BlueZ). > Copyright (C) 2002 Maxim Krasnyansky > Copyright (C) 2002 Marcel Holtmann > > And I like to have a little bit more detailed commit message please. > Sure I will resubmit Also, should we drop the "rx" packets ? Thanks Jaikumar > Regards > > Marcel > > >