Hi Marcel, On Sun, Jun 29, 2014, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > The usage of non-resovlable private addresses for passive scanning is > a bad idea. Passive scanning will not send any SCAN_REQ and thus using > your identity address for passive scanning is not a privacy issue. > > It is important to use the identity address during passive scanning > since that is the only way devices using direct advertising will be > reported correctly by the controller. This is overlooked detail in > the Bluetooth specification that current controllers are not able > to report direct advertising events for other than their current > address. > > When remote peers are using direct advertising and scanning is done > with non-resolvable private address these devices will not be found. > > Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > net/bluetooth/hci_core.c | 11 ++++++----- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) Applied to bluetooth-next. Thanks. Johan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
