Return-Path: Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:41:48 +0800 From: "Wu,Jiangbo" To: Szymon Janc Cc: Johan Hedberg , Marcel Holtmann , martin.xu@intel.com, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Add conn type to identify addr type with SMP over BR/EDR Message-ID: <20161026024148.GA22115@wujiangbo-ubuntu> References: <1476448183-8630-1-git-send-email-jiangbo.wu@intel.com> <20161024073034.GA16791@wujiangbo-ubuntu> <1735513.K3lJeriVhH@ix> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1735513.K3lJeriVhH@ix> List-ID: On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:40:18PM +0200, Szymon Janc wrote: > Hi Jiangbo, > > On Monday, 24 October 2016 15:30:34 CEST Wu,Jiangbo wrote: > > Hi Szymon, > > > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:17:21AM +0200, Szymon Janc wrote: > > > Hi Jiangbo, > > > > > > On 18 October 2016 at 22:32, Szymon Janc wrote: > > > > Hi Jiangbo, > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 18:23:38 CEST Wu,Jiangbo wrote: > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:05:33PM +0200, Szymon Janc wrote: > > > >> > Hi, > > > >> > > > > >> > On Saturday, 15 October 2016 00:43:13 CEST wujiangbo wrote: > > > >> > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 05:19:38PM +0300, Johan Hedberg wrote: > > > >> > > > Hi Jiangbo, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Please don't top-post on this list. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016, Wu, Jiangbo wrote: > > > >> > > > > If pair a device that unpair firstly that remove encryption > > > >> > > > > key, > > > >> > > > > encryption key event will be emitted. kernel will receive > > > >> > > > > 'L2CAP_CID_SMP_BREDR' frame, and then it will use SMP to > > > >> > > > > distribute > > > >> > > > > key. SMP would like to use LTK, IRK and CRSK to notify user. > > > >> > > > > If it > > > >> > > > > don't identify device by which conn type they are, only marks > > > >> > > > > LE as > > > >> > > > > the device type, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Why would that happen? Before SMP over BR/EDR happens pairing > > > >> > > > would > > > >> > > > have > > > >> > > > happened over BR/EDR, so bluetoothd should know that BR/EDR is > > > >> > > > supported > > > >> > > > as well (it would even be aware of an existing BR/EDR > > > >> > > > connection). Are > > > >> > > > you perhaps trying to work around some bluetoothd bug with all > > > >> > > > this? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I use upstream bluez source code without change. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Yes, bluetoothd scan will find device type is BR/EDR or LE. As my > > > >> > > case, > > > >> > > device is BR/EDR. But if kernel report CRSK notify, bluetoothd will > > > >> > > change > > > >> > > > > > >> > > the device type to LE. The code you can see: > > > >> > > new_csrk_callback -> btd_adapter_get_device -> > > > > > > > > btd_adapter_find_device > > > > > > > >> > > if (bdaddr_type == BDADDR_BREDR) > > > >> > > > > > >> > > device_set_bredr_support(device); > > > >> > > > > > >> > > else > > > >> > > > > > >> > > device_set_le_support(device, bdaddr_type); > > > >> > > > > > >> > > As Marcel mentioned before, LTK, IRK and CRSK are only valid for LE > > > >> > > link. > > > >> > > So the rootcause is why remote start to pair a BR/EDR device, the > > > >> > > kernel > > > >> > > will receive CRSK event. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > This is the first pair, and it will pair success even if receive > > > >> > > CRSK > > > >> > > notify. And the second and the next all pair will be failed with > > > >> > > remote > > > >> > > device unpair and then pair again. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > while Bluetoothd will use this 'addr' and 'addr type' to reply > > > >> > > > > the > > > >> > > > > comfirm to kernel. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > What reply are you talking about? There's no user interaction > > > >> > > > involved > > > >> > > > with SMP over BR/EDR - that would already have occurred when SSP > > > >> > > > over > > > >> > > > BR/EDR happened. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Sorry to confuse the case, the pairing failed coming with next pair > > > >> > > procedure. Because at the last pair with CRSK notify, device type > > > >> > > will > > > >> > > be > > > >> > > changed to LE, following is the failed scenario after last success > > > >> > > with > > > >> > > CRSK notify. Remote unpair and pair again. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > This reply is SPP, user confirm passkey reply. When pairing > > > >> > > proceduce, > > > >> > > User > > > >> > > confirm the pairing request through bluetoothd, that will send mgmt > > > >> > > op > > > >> > > 'MGMT_OP_USER_CONFIRM_REPLY' with device address and device type in > > > >> > > mgmt_cp_user_confirm_reply. Kernel use the device address and type > > > >> > > to > > > >> > > lookup hci conn. Unfortunately, it will lookup hci_conn from LE > > > >> > > hashtable, that don't include hci conn. So spp reply couldn't send > > > >> > > to > > > >> > > remote, caused pair failed. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > At the same time kernel always uses them to lookup hci_conn in > > > >> > > > > LE > > > >> > > > > hashtable firstly, because addr type always marks as LE. > > > >> > > > > Obviously > > > >> > > > > it > > > >> > > > > will failed with SMP over BR/EDR. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I don't follow this either since there shouldn't have been any > > > >> > > > "reply" > > > >> > > > from user space for SMP over BR/EDR. All there should be are > > > >> > > > events > > > >> > > > from > > > >> > > > the kernel for the generated LE keys. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Actually, SPM is only for LE in SPEC, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > That's not true. SMP is specified both for LE-U and ACL-U. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > but kernel already support and use SMP over BR/EDR. if BR/EDR > > > >> > > > > exchanges key with SMP, it will never reply pairing response to > > > >> > > > > remote, in other words it will be never paired, that is > > > >> > > > > happened in > > > >> > > > > our products. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Szymon recently implemented SMP over BR/EDR for Zephyr and used > > > >> > > > Linux/BlueZ as a reference for testing. He didn't report any > > > >> > > > issues > > > >> > > > like > > > >> > > > this. It might help if you could provide some logs (particularly > > > >> > > > HCI/btmon but also from bluetoothd) to understand what's the > > > >> > > > actual > > > >> > > > issue you're seeing. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Johan > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Sorry to confuse this issue, the log is not in my hand right now, > > > >> > > so it maybe later. > > > >> > > > > >> > So I was able to reproduce this issue. This is bluetoothd bug and not > > > >> > kernel one. This bug is no specific to cross-transport pairing. It > > > >> > can > > > >> > happen with any dual-mode device that is doing BR/EDR pairing while > > > >> > being > > > >> > known as dual mode by bluetoothd when agent replies with passkey or > > > >> > confirmation. > > > >> > > > > >> > To fix this we probably need to hold extra information in > > > >> > 'struct authentication_req' in device.c about type of pairing (LE or > > > >> > BR/EDR). This is not a one-liner-fix so I don't have a patch ready > > > >> > yet. > > > >> > > > >> Totally agree with you about dual-mode device pairing known as dual > > > >> mode. > > > >> But i want to known is that reasonable about device is to do BR/EDR > > > >> pairing > > > >> will generate CRSK notify? I'm very intersting about this fixing, this > > > >> bug > > > >> is hight priority in our product. In my opinion hold extra informatin > > > >> in > > > >> 'struct authentication_req' may not fix this bug. Because if CRSK event > > > >> is > > > >> still report, then bluetoothd will change the device type to LE even if > > > >> we > > > >> pair device that is scaned with BR/EDR. So i think the rootcase is find > > > >> does CRSK event make sense in BR/EDR pairing, and how to handle CRSK > > > >> events > > > >> in BR/EDR pairing if it make sense. I'm confuse with those. > > > > > > > > It doesn't change the device to LE but to dual mode device. This is > > > > *cross-transport* pairing so keys for other transport are generated. > > > > baddr_type specify only LE address type, not BR/EDR since there is no > > > > address type for BR/EDR. This is mostly true but few places in > > > > bluetoothd seem to asusme that for device supporting BR/EDR type is > > > > equal 0. Which is not true if device is dual mode. > > > > > > > > You should be able to reproduce this bug with dual-mode devices that > > > > don't > > > > support cross-transport pairing: enable advertising, scan from linux, > > > > when > > > > device is found stop advertising and make device discoverable over > > > > BR/EDR > > > > (inquiry). When device is found over BR/EDR stop scanning and start > > > > pairing.> > > > > >> I noticed that if quikly reply the passkey confirm, this bug always be > > > >> reproduced, but if wait for 2~3s to reply the passkey confirm, it works > > > >> well every time. In terms of code, wait for 2~3s will cause l2cap chan > > > >> timeout for info timer that created by HCI_EV_REMOTE_EXT_FEATURES > > > >> event, > > > >> and timeout will change l2cap chan to BT_CONNECTED. So next SMP > > > >> resume/ready don't distribute key also CRSK events. > > > >> > > > >> It can't reproduce with btmgmt, because it reply passkey confirm always > > > >> only use BR/EDR in 'struct mgmt_cp_user_confirm_reply' not use device > > > >> relation type. > > > >> > > > >> bluetoothd.log and btmon.log are attached. It records two pair request > > > >> sequence, one is pair success that have CRSK event, another is next > > > >> pair > > > >> reqeust don't success any, hope those maybe help you to annlyze this > > > >> bug. > > > > > > I've sent a patch "[RFC] core: Fix BR/EDR pairing for dual mode devices". > > > Please check if this solves issue you are seeing. > > > > Thanks for your patch. Maybe it can resolve the issue, but it will cause > > other issues. For example, some operations also use device->bdaddr as > > parameter in MGMT operations, unpair is the same. If kernel hold the device > > as BR/EDR type in hdev->conn_hash, unpair operator won't find the hci conn, > > so it couldn't terminal the link. but the link is exist at the moment. MGMT > > also complete when don't terminal the link. So bluetoothd and the user > > don't feel the different. But is that we would like? The code implies we > > should terminate the connection if it is exist. > > > > The patch use auth_req with BDADDR_BREDR to handle pairing request. It could > > resolve the pairing procedure. But kernel hold the device as BR/EDR, even > > if cross-tranport is generated on BR/EDR hci conn. Meanwhile bluetoothd > > will set device->bdaddr_type to BDADDR_LE_PUBLIC with new_csrk_callback > > that generated by cross-transport. I mean, the user-space hold the device > > with BDADDR_LE_PUBLIC (yes, device->bredr and device->le are true, but > > addr-type is BDADDR_LE_PUBLIC), the kernel hold the device with > > BDADDR_BREDR. Whenever user-space use couple {addr, addr-type} to send > > request to kernel. It maybe failed. > > bdaddr_type is used only with LE address (not with BR/EDR address) so I'm not > sure what other issues you are talking about. Could you provide some logs? > > > > > As the end. In my case, i don't do the steps you mentioned(enable > > advertising, scan from linux, stop advertising). I only start BR/EDR > > discovering with discovery filter, pair device and unpair device to > > reproduce this bug. I don't start/stop LE advertising. > > So you still see your issue with this patch? You can see in my case, all of them are BR/EDR. I use D-Bus method 'SetDiscoveryFilter' to enable bredr scan only. So scanning is BR/EDR, pairing is BR/EDR, HCI conn is created with BR/EDR. Even if crsk is generated, it's also transport SMP over BR/EDR. bluetoothd/kernel all consider peers is BR/EDR. Your case enable LE advertising, so you think peers is LE. But it's not correct in my case. I only use BR/EDR. So your patch can resolve the pairing procedure, but what about other operations? They all hold the addr type is BR/EDR, not LE. I maintain my submission patch locally, and it works fine in our product. Also thanks for your attention. Thanks Jiangbo > > -- > pozdrawiam > Szymon Janc > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html