Return-Path: From: To: CC: , , Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 09:53:10 +0200 Subject: RE: [PATCH cover letter] Bluetooth: Revert: Fix L2CAP connection ... Message-ID: References: <1319621002-7122-1-git-send-email-arkadiusz.lichwa@tieto.com> <20111031190129.GA10164@joana> In-Reply-To: <20111031190129.GA10164@joana> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Gustavo >From: Gustavo F. Padovan [mailto:pao@profusion.mobi] On Behalf Of Gustavo >Padovan >Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 8:01 PM >To: Lichwa Arkadiusz >Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org; iliak@ti.com; ulrik.lauren@stericsson.com >Subject: Re: [PATCH cover letter] Bluetooth: Revert: Fix L2CAP connection ... > >Hi Arek, > >* Arek Lichwa [2011-10-26 11:23:21 +0200]: > >> Hi >> >> We found during testing problem when setting rfcomm (SPP) channel between >> two 2.1 devices. >> The test case always failed mostly saying security block on l2cap level >> but sometimes the fail root cause was 'Command not understood' on l2cap >> as well. >> Analyzing security block issue, I found that there's unencrypted link when >> l2cap command 'connection request' is sent to remote. >> The second issue with 'command not understood' has turn out to be related to >> expiration of l2cap timer and its implications. >> >> Solution that I found to fix the problem seems to be related to old commit >> 330605423ca6eafafb8dcc27502bce1c585d1b06 made by Ilia Kolomisnky. When >there's >> authentication ongoing, 'encryption pending' should be turn on, otherwise >> there're situations when link stays unencrypted. >> The issue with timer expiration is related to Andrzej Kaczmarek's patch >> sent to community a couple days ago (~ 2011/10/20). >> This patch actually recalculates (repairs) timer values on l2cap which were >> wrongly converted before. >> With this patch the expiration issue disappears during the test case >> I've made, otherwise just reverting >330605423ca6eafafb8dcc27502bce1c585d1b06 >> is not enough, since timer issue blocks very often passing the test case. > >Are you saying that Andrzej's patch together with revert of 330605423 fixes >the problem? and are you sure that we are not creating any new regression? > > Gustavo Yes, that's right, it fixes. About potencial new regression, I don't think so since previous code before Ilia made change was stable and verified. Did you asked Ilia about regression report that time? /Arek