Yes, if it is only the sample it is not blocking. I would call it critical though since it would be much better if we didn't have samples with incorrect code.
-Josh Josh Spain Director of Engineering Affinegy, Inc. t.512-535-1700 x1006 a. 1705 S Capital of Texas Hwy, Suite 310, Austin, TX 78746 USA Website <http://affinegy.com> Email <[email protected]> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/joshspain> <http://twitter.com/affinegy> Latest Tweet: <https://twitter.com/Affinegy> It's not all about #TheCloud. <https://twitter.com/TheCloud.> Intelligence at #TheEdge <https://twitter.com/TheEdge> and in #TheFog <https://twitter.com/TheFog> matter. Distributed computing will continue a… https://t.co/6gwm8lsyIK Read More <https://twitter.com/Affinegy/statuses/794704825367887874> <https://twitter.com/Affinegy> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Lioy, Marcello <[email protected]> wrote: > So it sounds like the issue is with the C door sample? If so that doesn’t > seem like it is release blocking, but worth calling out the bug in a > release note. Pawel, could you add your analysis to the issue indicating > what the problem is so that the release notes give a sense of what should > actually be happening. > > > > Josh, Arvind, do you agree it’s not blocking but we do want to add to the > release notes? > > > > *From:* Pawel Winogrodzki [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 08, 2016 2:59 PM > *To:* Kevin Kane <[email protected]>; Arvind Padole < > [email protected]>; Lioy, Marcello <[email protected]>; > Josh Spain <[email protected]>; Carrie Hertel < > [email protected]> > > *Cc:* '[email protected]' <allseen-core@lists. > allseenalliance.org> > *Subject:* RE: Release note ASACORE-3464 > > > > I’ve looked into the Security Manager’s code a bit and it seems to be > doing the right thing. The C samples on the other hand (so my code, > unfortunately) seem to have a bug – they wait for their status to change to > “CLAIMED” and proceed with modifying the accepted authentication methods. > They do this in two steps: > > > > QStatus status = alljoyn_busattachment_enablepeersecurity(doorData->bus, > "", nullptr, nullptr, QCC_TRUE); > > if (ER_OK != status) { > > fprintf(stderr, "Failed to clear peer security - status (%s)\n", > QCC_StatusText(status)); > > return status; > > } > > > > status = alljoyn_busattachment_enablepeersecurity(doorData->bus, > KEYX_ECDHE_DSA, doorData->authListener, nullptr, QCC_FALSE); > > if (ER_OK != status) { > > fprintf(stderr, "Failed to set peer security for claimed mode - > status (%s)\n", QCC_StatusText(status)); > > return status; > > } > > > > In the meantime the Security Manager will try to establish another > connection and call “EndManagement()”, so it might happen, that the > connection is established before or in between these two API calls. > > > > I’ll try to change the samples locally and verify this fixed the issue. > The C++ samples should be fine, because they are waiting for an event set > in the “EndManagement” callback. > > > > *From:* Kevin Kane > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 8, 2016 14:29 > *To:* Arvind Padole <[email protected]>; Lioy, Marcello < > [email protected]>; Josh Spain <[email protected]>; Carrie Hertel < > [email protected]>; Pawel Winogrodzki <[email protected]> > *Cc:* '[email protected]' <allseen-core@lists. > allseenalliance.org> > *Subject:* RE: Release note ASACORE-3464 > > > > This looks like a real bug. The “Old application state/New application > state” output is from the security manager. I’m not as familiar with this > code but I’m guessing it’s changing its internal database that tracks the > work it has to do, but when it attempts to actually claim the door > provider, it fails to do so. 0x9032 is ER_BUS_REPLY_IS_ERROR_MESSAGE. > > > > SecurityApplicationProxy.cc:1035 is calling EndManagement, which suggests > the Claim call itself was successful, and EndManagement for some reason is > failing. *Pawel*, I seem to recall you changed Claim such that the app > was in the managementStarted state, so this shouldn’t be failing. Any ideas? > > > > *From:* Arvind Padole > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:54 PM > *To:* Lioy, Marcello <[email protected]>; Josh Spain < > [email protected]>; Carrie Hertel <[email protected]>; > Kevin Kane <[email protected]>; Pawel Winogrodzki <[email protected] > > > *Cc:* '[email protected]' <allseen-core@lists. > allseenalliance.org> > *Subject:* RE: Release note ASACORE-3464 > > > > We should probably investigate and understand what’s going on here before > we can decide if it’s a blocking bug that must be fixed or just relnoted. > From the output, it looks like a minor issue in the secmgr sample in that > the provider is claimed but somehow the error is displayed. > > > > Adding Pawel as well. Kevin/Pawel – can you take a look to see if my > theory above is correct or if there is a different issue here? > > > > Please enter the password provided by the application: > A02D04 > Claiming application ... > 110.300 ****** ERROR ALLJOYN_OBJ lepDisp2_0 .../router/AllJoynObj.cc:4466 > | 0x9029 > 110.300 ****** ERROR ALLJOYN_OBJ lepDisp2_0 .../router/AllJoynObj.cc:4466 > | 0x9029 > 110.300 ****** ERROR ALLJOYN_OBJ lepDisp2_0 .../router/AllJoynObj.cc:4466 > | 0x9029 > >> Old application state : OnlineApplication: Busname: :1E7cCe4y.40, Claim > state: CLAIMABLE, Sync state: SYNC_UNMANAGED > >> New application state : OnlineApplication: Busname: :1E7cCe4y.40, Claim > state: CLAIMED, Sync state: SYNC_UNMANAGED > >> Application id : 9d3d951a5784efa7f84a2eafeb963f5d > >> Application name : DoorProvider (CASS-IOT-WIN10) > > 135.375 ****** ERROR ALLJOYN_SECURITY external > ...tyApplicationProxy.cc:1035 | 0x9032 > 135.375 ****** ERROR SECMGR_AGENT external .../ProxyObjectManager.cc:340 | > 0x9032 > 135.375 ****** ERROR SECMGR_AGENT external ...c/SecurityAgentImpl.cc:516 | > 0x9032 > Failed to claim application ... > > > > > > *From:* Lioy, Marcello [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 8, 2016 10:49 AM > *To:* Arvind Padole <[email protected]>; Josh Spain < > [email protected]>; Carrie Hertel <[email protected]>; > Kevin Kane <[email protected]> > *Cc:* '[email protected]' <allseen-core@lists. > allseenalliance.org> > *Subject:* Release note ASACORE-3464 > *Importance:* High > > > > Do people thing that we should include ASACORE-3464 > <https://jira.allseenalliance.org/browse/ASACORE-3464> (Security 2.0 Door > Provider on windows 10 must be claimed first > <https://jira.allseenalliance.org/browse/ASACORE-3464>) in the release > notes? Or is that expected behavior? > > >
_______________________________________________ Allseen-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.allseenalliance.org/mailman/listinfo/allseen-core
