host: sm: secure connection only pairing might fail with no reason #1961
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When BLE_SM_SC_ONLY is on during pairing request, the process might fail even though both SC is supported by the peer and the key size meet the requirements.
guy-m
force-pushed
the
guym/sm_sc_only_fix
branch
from
a792cc0 to
d26c105
Compare
sjanc
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2025
|
#AutoPTS run mynewt SM |
|
Scheduled PR #1961 (comment), board: nrf52, estimated start time: 11:18:43, test case count: 60, estimated duration: 0:36:09 Test cases to be runSM/CEN/PROT/BV-01-CSM/CEN/JW/BV-05-C SM/CEN/JW/BI-04-C SM/CEN/JW/BI-01-C SM/CEN/PKE/BV-01-C SM/CEN/PKE/BV-04-C SM/CEN/PKE/BI-01-C SM/CEN/PKE/BI-02-C SM/CEN/OOB/BV-01-C SM/CEN/OOB/BV-03-C SM/CEN/OOB/BV-09-C SM/CEN/OOB/BI-01-C SM/CEN/EKS/BV-01-C SM/CEN/EKS/BI-01-C SM/CEN/KDU/BV-05-C SM/CEN/KDU/BV-06-C SM/CEN/KDU/BV-10-C SM/CEN/PIS/BV-02-C SM/CEN/PIS/BV-03-C SM/CEN/SCJW/BV-01-C SM/CEN/SCJW/BV-04-C SM/CEN/SCJW/BI-01-C SM/CEN/SCPK/BV-01-C SM/CEN/SCPK/BV-04-C SM/CEN/SCPK/BI-01-C SM/CEN/SCPK/BI-02-C SM/CEN/SCOB/BV-01-C SM/CEN/SCOB/BV-04-C SM/CEN/SCOB/BI-01-C SM/CEN/SCOB/BI-04-C SM/PER/PROT/BV-02-C SM/PER/JW/BV-02-C SM/PER/JW/BI-03-C SM/PER/JW/BI-02-C SM/PER/PKE/BV-02-C SM/PER/PKE/BV-05-C SM/PER/PKE/BI-03-C SM/PER/OOB/BV-02-C SM/PER/OOB/BV-04-C SM/PER/OOB/BV-10-C SM/PER/OOB/BI-02-C SM/PER/EKS/BV-02-C SM/PER/EKS/BI-02-C SM/PER/KDU/BV-01-C SM/PER/KDU/BV-02-C SM/PER/KDU/BV-07-C SM/PER/KDU/BV-08-C SM/PER/PIS/BV-01-C SM/PER/PIS/BV-02-C SM/PER/SCJW/BV-02-C SM/PER/SCJW/BV-03-C SM/PER/SCJW/BI-02-C SM/PER/SCPK/BV-02-C SM/PER/SCPK/BV-03-C SM/PER/SCPK/BI-03-C SM/PER/SCPK/BI-04-C SM/PER/SCOB/BV-02-C SM/PER/SCOB/BV-03-C SM/PER/SCOB/BI-02-C SM/PER/SCOB/BI-03-C |
|
AutoPTS Bot results: Successful tests (60)SM SM/CEN/EKS/BI-01-C PASSSM SM/CEN/EKS/BV-01-C PASS SM SM/CEN/JW/BI-01-C PASS SM SM/CEN/JW/BI-04-C PASS SM SM/CEN/JW/BV-05-C PASS SM SM/CEN/KDU/BV-05-C PASS SM SM/CEN/KDU/BV-06-C PASS SM SM/CEN/KDU/BV-10-C PASS SM SM/CEN/OOB/BI-01-C PASS SM SM/CEN/OOB/BV-01-C PASS SM SM/CEN/OOB/BV-03-C PASS SM SM/CEN/OOB/BV-09-C PASS SM SM/CEN/PIS/BV-02-C PASS SM SM/CEN/PIS/BV-03-C PASS SM SM/CEN/PKE/BI-01-C PASS SM SM/CEN/PKE/BI-02-C PASS SM SM/CEN/PKE/BV-01-C PASS SM SM/CEN/PKE/BV-04-C PASS SM SM/CEN/PROT/BV-01-C PASS SM SM/CEN/SCJW/BI-01-C PASS SM SM/CEN/SCJW/BV-01-C PASS SM SM/CEN/SCJW/BV-04-C PASS SM SM/CEN/SCOB/BI-01-C PASS SM SM/CEN/SCOB/BI-04-C PASS SM SM/CEN/SCOB/BV-01-C PASS SM SM/CEN/SCOB/BV-04-C PASS SM SM/CEN/SCPK/BI-01-C PASS SM SM/CEN/SCPK/BI-02-C PASS SM SM/CEN/SCPK/BV-01-C PASS SM SM/CEN/SCPK/BV-04-C PASS SM SM/PER/EKS/BI-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/EKS/BV-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/JW/BI-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/JW/BI-03-C PASS SM SM/PER/JW/BV-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/KDU/BV-01-C PASS SM SM/PER/KDU/BV-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/KDU/BV-07-C PASS SM SM/PER/KDU/BV-08-C PASS SM SM/PER/OOB/BI-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/OOB/BV-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/OOB/BV-04-C PASS SM SM/PER/OOB/BV-10-C PASS SM SM/PER/PIS/BV-01-C PASS SM SM/PER/PIS/BV-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/PKE/BI-03-C PASS SM SM/PER/PKE/BV-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/PKE/BV-05-C PASS SM SM/PER/PROT/BV-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/SCJW/BI-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/SCJW/BV-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/SCJW/BV-03-C PASS SM SM/PER/SCOB/BI-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/SCOB/BI-03-C PASS SM SM/PER/SCOB/BV-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/SCOB/BV-03-C PASS SM SM/PER/SCPK/BI-03-C PASS SM SM/PER/SCPK/BI-04-C PASS SM SM/PER/SCPK/BV-02-C PASS SM SM/PER/SCPK/BV-03-C PASS |
sjanc
reviewed
Jan 24, 2025
| } | ||
| res->sm_err = BLE_SM_ERR_AUTHREQ; | ||
| res->app_status = BLE_HS_SM_US_ERR(BLE_SM_ERR_AUTHREQ); | ||
| res->enc_cb = 1; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
btw why setting enc_cb=1 is needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is not mandatory. However, The addition of "res->enc_cb = 1;" triggers the BLE_GAP_EVENT_ENC_CHANGE with the corresponding error code. This allows the application / upper tester to be aware of the pairing failure and also to verify the IUT correct behavior without having over-the-air capture or PTS logs.
I also added it for the other error codes both for pair_rsp_rx and pair_req_rx in the other PR: #1957
If needed I can remove it from here and I can update the second PR with this addition after rebase so it won't be tight together....
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When BLE_SM_SC_ONLY is on during pairing request, the process might fail even though both SC is supported by the peer and the key size meet the requirements.