linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: hci_event: Mask data status from LE ext adv reports

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABBYNZJ60JUyz30u8QXvv6OO5dAu1A5-JDB_jJ=H_yR6+WYfng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 12:05:41 -0400
From: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>
To: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
Cc: linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team@...com, Jaganath Kanakkassery <jaganath.k.os@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: hci_event: Mask data status from LE ext adv reports

Hi Chris,

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 4:13 AM Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name> wrote:
>
> Hi Luiz,
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> Luiz Augusto von Dentz writes:
> >Can you include a sample trace of the above?
>
> Is that with btmon or similar? Sorry, I'm not a regular contributor to this
> subsystem :-)
>
> I mostly have a personal desire to get this merged because it's a particularly
> noisy case where I happen to live :-) These are all with 0x40:
>
>    % dmesg | wc -l
>    3815
>    % dmesg | grep -c 'Unknown advertising'
>    3227

Try to capture one of them using btmon and then add to the patch description.

> >Also it would be great to  have a mgmt-tester for example that attempts to
> >generate an advertisement like that to exercise such change.
>
> Looks like that's in Bluez userspace code right, so what's the order of doing
> these things?
>
> >> -       if (evt_type == LE_EXT_ADV_NON_CONN_IND ||
> >> -           evt_type & LE_EXT_ADV_DIRECT_IND)
> >> +       if (pdu_type == LE_EXT_ADV_NON_CONN_IND ||
> >
> >I'm not sure I would keep checking for  LE_EXT_ADV_NON_CONN_IND, maybe
> >just return LE_ADV_NONCONN_IND, LE_EXT_ADV_NON_CONN_IND is not
> >actually a bit it is the absence of any bits being set, so I guess the
> >only invalid adv are the ones for legacy which seem to require a bit
> >to be set.
>
> So are you thinking of doing this?
>
>    if (!(pdu_type & ~(LE_EXT_ADV_DIRECT_IND)))
>            return LE_ADV_NONCONN_IND;

We can probably return early on if (!evt_type) return
LE_ADV_NONCONN_IND since there is no point in evaluating it if it is
zero.

> Thanks for your help!
>
> Chris



-- 
Luiz Augusto von Dentz