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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
