7 Apr
2016
7 Apr
'16
2:52 a.m.
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