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 <szymon.janc@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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
