Return-Path: Message-ID: <426E6F60.2020000@gmx.ch> From: Marco Trudel MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bluez-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bluez-users] implementing security mode 2 or 3 References: <426E0C5A.8060203@gmx.ch> <200504261153.08434.bluez-user@schaettgen.de> <426E5CCC.2030108@gmx.ch> <1114530540.10706.301.camel@pegasus> <426E6516.3010403@gmx.ch> <1114532376.10706.310.camel@pegasus> In-Reply-To: <1114532376.10706.310.camel@pegasus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: bluez-users-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: bluez-users-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Reply-To: bluez-users@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: BlueZ users List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:42:08 +0200 Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Marco, > > >>>>this works great with a 2.6.11 kernel. >>>>Unfortunately I'm bound to kernel 2.4.26 or 2.6.7. >>>>2.4.26 doesn't work. It just let's remote devices connect... >>>>Do you know if 2.6.7 will? >>> >>> >>>the 2.6.7 will fail. The needed security hooks are introduced with >>>2.6.10 and the RFCOMM service level security with 2.6.11 according to my >>>patch logs. >>> >>> >>>>If not, which part of the kernel has to be fixed? Is it a part of bluez? >>> >>> >>>It is inside the BlueZ core and the RFCOMM layer. >> >>How long would you have to backport that to kernel 2.6.7? >>Maybe we can arrainge something with a donation... > > > tell me what interfaces are you going to use. Is it always USB? What > kernel layers are involved? RFCOMM, BNEP, CMTP, HIDP? always USB. RFCOMM services. authentication/encryption enabled as suggested on the list: int opt = RFCOMM_LM_AUTH|RFCOMM_LM_ENCRYPT; setsockopt(sock, SOL_RFCOMM, RFCOMM_LM, &opt, sizeof(opt)); > You will need more than this two patches for a 2.6.7 based kernel, > because there are some serious problems, too. actually I never run into problems with the 2.4 kernel. But I think it would definitely make sense to have this things fixed too... >>I assume it's easier to backport it to 2.6.7, if 2.4.26 is easier, please >>let me know. > > > The 2.6.7 backport will be end up in selecting patches and fixes small > things, while for 2.4.26 you need to rewrite most of the patches. ok, so it's 2.6.7... regards Marco ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software development plans! Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to SourceForge.net Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey Click here to start! http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=105hix _______________________________________________ Bluez-users mailing list Bluez-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-users