Return-Path: Errors-To: From: "Daryl Van Vorst" To: "'Marcel Holtmann'" Cc: "'Max Krasnyansky'" , "'BlueZ Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [Bluez-devel] Qualification Testing Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 19:33:30 -0700 Message-ID: <000201c3169c$8cd51570$6400a8c0@baked> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <1052526375.1214.130.camel@pegasus.local> List-ID: > > So how about we do this: As above, if it exists then we > close it. If > > not, we log an error. > > the proposal from Cetecom makes no sense. > > If you have one channel with correct data and you get a wrong > packet which was for another channel, but the CID is corrupt > and show now the value of the correct channel. You will > infect a correct working channel with a false packet. > > The main problem is that wrong packets should not arrive at > the L2CAP layer. If they do and we decect them (like a length > mismatch), we have to close down all channels and remove the > infected ACL link. > > Max, what do you think? This way is a little bit radical, but > I think it is an acceptable way of handling these errors. And > with this method we will pass this test. I like it. If the other end is that screwed up we should get rid of it completely. -Daryl.