On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 10:44:52PM +0200, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
- /* handle optional ciphering */
- if (!alg || strcasecmp(alg, "none") == 0)
db_sync_authinfo_for_subscr(NULL, subscr);- else {
struct gsm_auth_info ainfo = { 0, };/* the verify should make sure that this is okay */OSMO_ASSERT(alg);OSMO_ASSERT(ki);if (strcasecmp(alg, "xor") == 0)ainfo.auth_algo = AUTH_ALGO_XOR;else if (strcasecmp(alg, "comp128v1") == 0)ainfo.auth_algo = AUTH_ALGO_COMP128v1;rc = osmo_hexparse(ki, ainfo.a3a8_ki, sizeof(ainfo.a3a8_ki));if (rc < 0) {subscr_put(subscr);talloc_free(tmp);cmd->reply = "Failed to parse KI";return CTRL_CMD_ERROR;}ainfo.a3a8_ki_len = rc;db_sync_authinfo_for_subscr(&ainfo, subscr);rc = 0;- }
- db_sync_lastauthtuple_for_subscr(NULL, subscr);
You didn't bump to v2 because it is supposedly backwards compatible to subscriber-modify-v1 without auth info, right?
But consider that a subscriber-modify-v1 will now clear out the auth info when the newly added parameters are omitted. So it's not strictly backwards compatible, right? With the previous v1 I could only modify IMSI and MSISDN and leave algo and KI untouched. After this patch I will always either have to pass algo+KI again or they will be cleared out.
Also, this will always clear out the lastauthtuple, regardless of the auth info being changed or not. Even if I again pass the same algo+KI as were stored previously. OTOH clearing might be good when the IMSI has changed?? :P
Maybe it's better / less complex to have a separate command for auth or bump to v2...
r = self.do_set('subscriber-modify-v1', '2620345,445566,xor')self.assertEquals(r['mtype'], 'ERROR')self.assertEquals(r['error'], 'Value failed verification.')
I'm not familiar with the ctrl interface, but couldn't the error message be more descriptive, like "missing KI argument"?
log msg:
The algorithm and ki are considered optional but if a valid and non none algorithm is passed, a KI must be passed as well.
rather say 'not-none' or 'a valid algorithm other than "none"'.
~Neels