-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 459
nimble/host: add support for asynchronous authorization #2013
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
piotrnarajowski
wants to merge
5
commits into
apache:master
Choose a base branch
from
piotrnarajowski:authorization
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b92afa0
nimble/host: add support for asynchronous authorization
SumeetSingh19 f6e3ad6
nimble/host: add support for gatt authorization in btshell app
piotrnarajowski a3ccc27
apps: bttester: handle GAP authorization event
piotrnarajowski ebc3c97
nimble/host: add gatts method for async authorization
piotrnarajowski b93083f
nimble/host: fix code style
piotrnarajowski File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not convinced to this approach. It is because, I'm concerned it won't work as expected to the user. As the
authorized_attrssize is limited toPENDING_ATTR_MAX, the authorization state can be lost IMO. I would expect the once authorized client won't be asked for authorization again on attribute access attempt.The solution that comes to my mind would be a authorization state being stored by user. Meaning the user on authorization required characteristic registration provides authorization state block.
Such block would be flags where each flag would correspond to connection index, so the total number of bits would be
BLE_MAX_CONNECTIONS.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understand your concern and agree that this is not the best way to store such information. This btshell patch was just added as an example on how asnyc authorization procedure could look like. It is up to application to store information on which peer and what attribute has been already authorized. I'll try coming up with a smarter way to handle this for btshell.