Return-Path: From: "Gu, Chao Jie" To: Marcel Holtmann CC: Szymon Janc , "linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org" , "armansito@chromium.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH] Add signed write command Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:51:49 +0000 Message-ID: <3D02B219753AD44CBDDDE484323B17741130A12E@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1410958395-7174-1-git-send-email-chao.jie.gu@intel.com> <12273172.GZIjs3WGW2@leonov> <3D02B219753AD44CBDDDE484323B17741130A080@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 List-ID: Hi Marcel, > >>> Add bt_att_set_csrk for btgatt-client tool. However this patch hook > >>> into shared/mgmt, so btgatt-client now should be running by the root = user. > >> > >> I guess this could be made optional. > > > > You said this could be made optional , what's you point ? I am not > > very clear about That. >=20 > just provide a command line option to btgatt-client to provide the CSRK t= o be used. > There is no need to attach to mgmt since that is only seeing keys during = pairing > anyway. > You means that let user get CSRK from DEVICE_FILE which stored CSRK value w= hen pairing, and put this CSRK into command line option by himself , right? =20 > >>> +void bt_att_set_csrk(struct bt_att *att, > >>> + const uint8_t *val, > >>> + uint32_t local_sign_cnt) > >> > >> This should allow to set local and/or remote csrk. Either we have two > >> functions or flag identifying which key is provided. > > > > This is good idea. But this patch for client side, there is no need to > > use remote_csrk, So would it be better to add remote csrk part when we = need > this? >=20 > I want to function. One to set the local CSRK and one for setting the rem= ote CSRK. > However I have no idea why we are bothering with the sign counter. Just r= eset it > when creating bt_att. >=20 That's fine . I will implement it. Best Regards Chaojie Gu