Hi,
I've got some problems with enabling service level security for rfcomm.
First I was hoping that this is in 2.6.10, but obvisously it isn't.
Btw. rctest doesn't work with a vanilla kernel, because setsockopt() is called
(and fails), no matter if it's necessary or not.
So after applying the mh1-patch for 2.6.10, the result looks like this:
$ ./rctest -d -P 27 -A
rctest[12830]: Waiting for connection on channel 27 ...
rctest[12831]: Connect from 00:E0:03:32:28:37
rctest[12831]: Receiving ...
rctest[12831]: Recevied 4 bytes
(nothing more to expect at this point..)
rctest[12831]: Disconnect
$
No authentication is triggered, even though the two devices are not paired.
rctest seems to recognize the A-switch nicely. setsockopt is called and
doesn't fail.
Is service level security supposed to work at the moment with 2.6.10-mh1?
regards
Fred
--
Fred Schaettgen
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
Bluez-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel
Hi Fred,
> I've got some problems with enabling service level security for rfcomm.
> First I was hoping that this is in 2.6.10, but obvisously it isn't.
> Btw. rctest doesn't work with a vanilla kernel, because setsockopt() is called
> (and fails), no matter if it's necessary or not.
>
> So after applying the mh1-patch for 2.6.10, the result looks like this:
>
> $ ./rctest -d -P 27 -A
> rctest[12830]: Waiting for connection on channel 27 ...
> rctest[12831]: Connect from 00:E0:03:32:28:37
> rctest[12831]: Receiving ...
> rctest[12831]: Recevied 4 bytes
> (nothing more to expect at this point..)
> rctest[12831]: Disconnect
> $
>
> No authentication is triggered, even though the two devices are not paired.
> rctest seems to recognize the A-switch nicely. setsockopt is called and
> doesn't fail.
> Is service level security supposed to work at the moment with 2.6.10-mh1?
it is removed from 2.6.10-mh1, because of a schedule problem.
Regards
Marcel
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
Bluez-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel