Hi Alain,
> Would love comments on this. Corresponding user mode changes also
> submitted for comments.
>
> ---
> include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h | 15 ++++++++++
> include/net/bluetooth/mgmt.h | 13 +++++++++
> net/bluetooth/hci_core.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> net/bluetooth/mgmt.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> net/bluetooth/smp.c | 8 +++++
> 5 files changed, 133 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> index b689aceb636b..4de9e3a21e7d 100644
> --- a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> @@ -118,6 +118,19 @@ struct bt_uuid {
> u8 svc_hint;
> };
>
> +enum hci_blocked_key_type {
> + HCI_BLOCKED_KEY_TYPE_LINKKEY = 0x00,
> + HCI_BLOCKED_KEY_TYPE_LTK = 0x01,
> + HCI_BLOCKED_KEY_TYPE_IRK = 0x02,
> +};
we are not using really using enum that much in this part of the code. Also this should go into mgmt.h actually.
> +
> +struct blocked_key {
> + struct list_head list;
> + struct rcu_head rcu;
> + u8 type;
> + u8 val[16];
> +};
> +
> struct smp_csrk {
> bdaddr_t bdaddr;
> u8 bdaddr_type;
> @@ -397,6 +410,7 @@ struct hci_dev {
> struct list_head le_conn_params;
> struct list_head pend_le_conns;
> struct list_head pend_le_reports;
> + struct list_head blocked_keys;
>
> struct hci_dev_stats stat;
>
> @@ -1121,6 +1135,7 @@ struct smp_irk *hci_find_irk_by_addr(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *bdaddr,
> struct smp_irk *hci_add_irk(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *bdaddr,
> u8 addr_type, u8 val[16], bdaddr_t *rpa);
> void hci_remove_irk(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *bdaddr, u8 addr_type);
> +bool hci_is_blocked_key(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 type, u8 val[16]);
> void hci_smp_irks_clear(struct hci_dev *hdev);
>
> bool hci_bdaddr_is_paired(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *bdaddr, u8 type);
> diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/mgmt.h b/include/net/bluetooth/mgmt.h
> index 9cee7ddc6741..3d780da835fc 100644
> --- a/include/net/bluetooth/mgmt.h
> +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/mgmt.h
> @@ -654,6 +654,19 @@ struct mgmt_cp_set_phy_confguration {
> } __packed;
> #define MGMT_SET_PHY_CONFIGURATION_SIZE 4
>
> +#define MGMT_OP_SET_BLOCKED_KEYS 0x0046
> +
> +struct mgmt_blocked_key_info {
> + __u8 type;
> + __u8 val[16];
> +} __packed;
> +
> +struct mgmt_cp_set_blocked_keys {
> + __le16 key_count;
> + struct mgmt_blocked_key_info keys[0];
> +} __packed;
> +#define MGMT_OP_SET_BLOCKED_KEYS_SIZE 0
> +
> #define MGMT_EV_CMD_COMPLETE 0x0001
> struct mgmt_ev_cmd_complete {
> __le16 opcode;
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
> index 9e19d5a3aac8..e72434258c39 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
> @@ -2311,6 +2311,16 @@ void hci_smp_irks_clear(struct hci_dev *hdev)
> }
> }
>
> +void hci_blocked_keys_clear(struct hci_dev *hdev)
> +{
> + struct blocked_key *b;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(b, &hdev->blocked_keys, list) {
> + list_del_rcu(&b->list);
> + kfree_rcu(b, rcu);
> + }
> +}
> +
This can be static, right?
> struct link_key *hci_find_link_key(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *bdaddr)
> {
> struct link_key *k;
> @@ -2319,6 +2329,12 @@ struct link_key *hci_find_link_key(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *bdaddr)
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(k, &hdev->link_keys, list) {
> if (bacmp(bdaddr, &k->bdaddr) == 0) {
> rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + if (hci_is_blocked_key(hdev, HCI_BLOCKED_KEY_TYPE_LINKKEY, k->val))
> + /* The device may have refreshed it to a new one which
> + * would imply a second key is in the list */
> + continue;
> +
In this case put the { } around to make it clear where the body is. I know that the compiler doesn’t need it, but for the human it is easier to read. Or alternatively put the comment above the if clause.
I would additionally maybe add a warn_once() here.
Now coming to read the comment again, I do not get it. What has the key refresh to do with this?
> return k;
> }
> }
> @@ -2387,6 +2403,10 @@ struct smp_ltk *hci_find_ltk(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *bdaddr,
>
> if (smp_ltk_is_sc(k) || ltk_role(k->type) == role) {
> rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + if (hci_is_blocked_key(hdev, HCI_BLOCKED_KEY_TYPE_LTK, k->val))
> + return NULL;
> +
Same as above, I would add a warn_once.
> return k;
> }
> }
> @@ -2540,6 +2560,25 @@ struct smp_irk *hci_add_irk(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *bdaddr,
> return irk;
> }
>
> +bool hci_is_blocked_key(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 type, u8 val[16])
> +{
> + bool blocked = false;
> + struct blocked_key *b;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + list_for_each_entry(b, &hdev->blocked_keys, list) {
> + if (b->type == type &&
> + !memcmp(b->val, val, sizeof(b->val))) {
> + blocked = true;
> + goto done;
> + }
> + }
> +
> +done:
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + return blocked;
> +}
Lets move this above its users.
> +
> int hci_remove_link_key(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *bdaddr)
> {
> struct link_key *key;
> @@ -2548,10 +2587,13 @@ int hci_remove_link_key(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *bdaddr)
> if (!key)
> return -ENOENT;
>
> - BT_DBG("%s removing %pMR", hdev->name, bdaddr);
> + do {
> + BT_DBG("%s removing %pMR", hdev->name, bdaddr);
>
> - list_del_rcu(&key->list);
> - kfree_rcu(key, rcu);
> + list_del_rcu(&key->list);
> + kfree_rcu(key, rcu);
> + key = hci_find_link_key(hdev, bdaddr);
> + } while (key);
>
I don’t understand this change. Also this has nothing to do with this patch.
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -3244,6 +3286,7 @@ struct hci_dev *hci_alloc_dev(void)
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&hdev->pend_le_reports);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&hdev->conn_hash.list);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&hdev->adv_instances);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&hdev->blocked_keys);
>
> INIT_WORK(&hdev->rx_work, hci_rx_work);
> INIT_WORK(&hdev->cmd_work, hci_cmd_work);
> @@ -3443,6 +3486,7 @@ void hci_unregister_dev(struct hci_dev *hdev)
> hci_bdaddr_list_clear(&hdev->le_resolv_list);
> hci_conn_params_clear_all(hdev);
> hci_discovery_filter_clear(hdev);
> + hci_blocked_keys_clear(hdev);
> hci_dev_unlock(hdev);
>
> hci_dev_put(hdev);
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/mgmt.c b/net/bluetooth/mgmt.c
> index acb7c6d5643f..f45475a7c854 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/mgmt.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/mgmt.c
> @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ static const u16 mgmt_commands[] = {
> MGMT_OP_START_LIMITED_DISCOVERY,
> MGMT_OP_READ_EXT_INFO,
> MGMT_OP_SET_APPEARANCE,
> + MGMT_OP_SET_BLOCKED_KEYS,
> };
>
> static const u16 mgmt_events[] = {
> @@ -3531,6 +3532,54 @@ static int set_phy_configuration(struct sock *sk, struct hci_dev *hdev,
> return err;
> }
>
> +static int set_blocked_keys(struct sock *sk, struct hci_dev *hdev, void *data,
> + u16 len)
> +{
> + int err = MGMT_STATUS_SUCCESS;
> +
> + if (len < sizeof (struct mgmt_cp_set_blocked_keys) ||
> + ((len - offsetof(struct mgmt_cp_set_blocked_keys, keys)) %
> + sizeof(struct mgmt_blocked_key_info))) {
The indentation is wrong here. Maybe we need to create a macro for this since we have multiple cases checking the size of these kind of structures.
> + return mgmt_cmd_complete(sk, hdev->id, MGMT_OP_SET_BLOCKED_KEYS,
> + MGMT_STATUS_INVALID_PARAMS, NULL, 0);
> + }
> +
> + hci_dev_lock(hdev);
> + {
> + struct mgmt_cp_set_blocked_keys *keys = data;
> + int i;
Just put these variable at the top. I am all for reducing the scope, but you pay for it with another indentation.
> + for (i = 0; i < keys->key_count; ++i) {
> + bool alreadyBlocked = false;
> + struct blocked_key *b;
So after variable declaration, we normally have an empty line. And camel case variable names are not used.
> + list_for_each_entry(b, &hdev->blocked_keys, list) {
> + if (keys->keys[i].type == b->type &&
> + !memcmp(keys->keys[i].val, b->val,
> + sizeof(keys->keys[i].val))) {
> + alreadyBlocked = true;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (alreadyBlocked)
> + continue;
However, I would not even bother to check for duplicates. If there is a duplicate loaded by userspace, so be it.
> +
> + b = kzalloc(sizeof(*b), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!b) {
> + err = MGMT_STATUS_NO_RESOURCES;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + b->type = keys->keys[i].type;
> + memcpy(b->val, keys->keys[i].val, sizeof(b->val));
> + list_add_rcu(&b->list, &hdev->blocked_keys);
> + }
> + }
> + hci_dev_unlock(hdev);
> +
> + return mgmt_cmd_complete(sk, hdev->id, MGMT_OP_SET_BLOCKED_KEYS,
> + err, NULL, 0);
> +}
> +
> static void read_local_oob_data_complete(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 status,
> u16 opcode, struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> @@ -6914,6 +6963,7 @@ static const struct hci_mgmt_handler mgmt_handlers[] = {
> { set_appearance, MGMT_SET_APPEARANCE_SIZE },
> { get_phy_configuration, MGMT_GET_PHY_CONFIGURATION_SIZE },
> { set_phy_configuration, MGMT_SET_PHY_CONFIGURATION_SIZE },
> + { set_blocked_keys, MGMT_OP_SET_BLOCKED_KEYS_SIZE },
> };
>
> void mgmt_index_added(struct hci_dev *hdev)
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/smp.c b/net/bluetooth/smp.c
> index 6b42be4b5861..f61c78d81168 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/smp.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/smp.c
> @@ -2453,6 +2453,10 @@ static int smp_cmd_encrypt_info(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct sk_buff *skb)
> if (skb->len < sizeof(*rp))
> return SMP_INVALID_PARAMS;
>
> + if (hci_is_blocked_key(conn->hcon->hdev, HCI_BLOCKED_KEY_TYPE_LTK,
> + rp->ltk))
> + return SMP_INVALID_PARAMS;
> +
> SMP_ALLOW_CMD(smp, SMP_CMD_MASTER_IDENT);
Now this is a good question. Should we allow pairing with a blocked LTK and then just refuse to establish the link later like we do with BR/EDR or forcefully refuse it. This is for legacy pairing only anyway where the LTKs are distributed.
>
> skb_pull(skb, sizeof(*rp));
> @@ -2509,6 +2513,10 @@ static int smp_cmd_ident_info(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct sk_buff *skb)
> if (skb->len < sizeof(*info))
> return SMP_INVALID_PARAMS;
>
> + if (hci_is_blocked_key(conn->hcon->hdev, HCI_BLOCKED_KEY_TYPE_IRK,
> + info->irk))
> + return SMP_INVALID_PARAMS;
> +
Same here. In addition, we might want to skip using a blacked IRK if it gets loaded via Load Identity Resolving Keys. Right now an already established black listed IRK will be used.
> SMP_ALLOW_CMD(smp, SMP_CMD_IDENT_ADDR_INFO);
>
> skb_pull(skb, sizeof(*info));
Maybe instead of checking the keys all the time, we should just remove them from kernel memory. So when we do a Load Blocked Keys, we go through our list of known keys and purge the blocked ones. In addition when Loading IRK, LTK, LK we checked against the blocked list and don’t add the ones on the list.
And we let pairing succeed, but don’t store the keys. This might be a bit of a problem since we tell userspace about pairing success by sending it the key to store. I am open for thoughts.
Regards
Marcel
