[PATCH] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[PATCH] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[Andrei Emeltchenko]

From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>

gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since
those conditions are checked already.
---
 android/gatt.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
index 0258d91..169f6db 100644
--- a/android/gatt.c
+++ b/android/gatt.c
@@ -6311,8 +6311,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
 	if (!attrib)
 		return;
 
-	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions))
-		return;
+	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
 
 	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
 		return;
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[Szymon Janc]

Hi Andrei,

On Friday 19 of December 2014 11:24:40 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>
> 
> gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since
> those conditions are checked already.
> ---
>  android/gatt.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
> index 0258d91..169f6db 100644
> --- a/android/gatt.c
> +++ b/android/gatt.c
> @@ -6311,8 +6311,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
>  	if (!attrib)
>  		return;
>  
> -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions))
> -		return;
> +	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
>  
>  	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
>  		return;

Wasn't identical patch already reviewed few weeks ago?

-- 
Best regards, 
Szymon Janc

Re: [PATCH] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[Andrei Emeltchenko]

Hi Szymon,

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:07:55AM +0100, Szymon Janc wrote:
> Hi Andrei,
> 
> On Friday 19 of December 2014 11:24:40 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> > From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>
> > 
> > gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since
> > those conditions are checked already.
> > ---
> >  android/gatt.c | 3 +--
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
> > index 0258d91..169f6db 100644
> > --- a/android/gatt.c
> > +++ b/android/gatt.c
> > @@ -6311,8 +6311,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
> >  	if (!attrib)
> >  		return;
> >  
> > -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions))
> > -		return;
> > +	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
> >  
> >  	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
> >  		return;
> 
> Wasn't identical patch already reviewed few weeks ago?
> 

It is still valid. No better approach was found.

Best regards 
Andrei Emeltchenko 

Re: [PATCH] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[Szymon Janc]

Hi Andrei,

On Friday 19 of December 2014 12:14:50 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> Hi Szymon,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:07:55AM +0100, Szymon Janc wrote:
> > Hi Andrei,
> > 
> > On Friday 19 of December 2014 11:24:40 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> > > From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since
> > > those conditions are checked already.
> > > ---
> > >  android/gatt.c | 3 +--
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
> > > index 0258d91..169f6db 100644
> > > --- a/android/gatt.c
> > > +++ b/android/gatt.c
> > > @@ -6311,8 +6311,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
> > >  	if (!attrib)
> > >  		return;
> > >  
> > > -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions))
> > > -		return;
> > > +	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
> > >  
> > >  	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
> > >  		return;
> > 
> > Wasn't identical patch already reviewed few weeks ago?
> > 
> 
> It is still valid. No better approach was found.

I suggested possible solution which you implemented in V2. But you seem to
ignored comment from Luiz so this didn't moved on.

-- 
Best regards, 
Szymon Janc

[PATCH] android/gatt: Simplify gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions()

[Andrei Emeltchenko]

From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>

Condition checks inside gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() do not make
sense. Simplify function.
---
 android/gatt.c           | 10 +++++-----
 src/shared/gatt-db.c     | 10 ++--------
 src/shared/gatt-db.h     |  3 +--
 src/shared/gatt-server.c | 20 ++++----------------
 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
index 169f6db..6828f2f 100644
--- a/android/gatt.c
+++ b/android/gatt.c
@@ -4790,7 +4790,7 @@ static void read_requested_attributes(void *data, void *user_data)
 		return;
 	}
 
-	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
+	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
 
 	/*
 	 * Check if it is attribute we didn't declare permissions, like service
@@ -6311,7 +6311,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
 	if (!attrib)
 		return;
 
-	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
+	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
 
 	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
 		return;
@@ -6359,7 +6359,7 @@ static void write_signed_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
 	if (!attrib)
 		return;
 
-	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
+	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
 
 	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
 		return;
@@ -6430,7 +6430,7 @@ static uint8_t write_req_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
 	if (!attrib)
 		return ATT_ECODE_ATTR_NOT_FOUND;
 
-	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
+	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
 
 	error = check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions);
 	if (error)
@@ -6486,7 +6486,7 @@ static uint8_t write_prep_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
 	if (!attrib)
 		return ATT_ECODE_ATTR_NOT_FOUND;
 
-	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
+	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
 
 	error = check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions);
 	if (error)
diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-db.c b/src/shared/gatt-db.c
index bb60904..4b91ae6 100644
--- a/src/shared/gatt-db.c
+++ b/src/shared/gatt-db.c
@@ -1301,15 +1301,9 @@ bool gatt_db_attribute_get_incl_data(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
 	return true;
 }
 
-bool gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
-							uint32_t *permissions)
+uint32_t gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib)
 {
-	if (!attrib || !permissions)
-		return false;
-
-	*permissions = attrib->permissions;
-
-	return true;
+	return attrib->permissions;
 }
 
 static void pending_read_result(struct pending_read *p, int err,
diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-db.h b/src/shared/gatt-db.h
index e5fe6bb..1379aae 100644
--- a/src/shared/gatt-db.h
+++ b/src/shared/gatt-db.h
@@ -171,8 +171,7 @@ bool gatt_db_attribute_get_incl_data(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
 							uint16_t *start_handle,
 							uint16_t *end_handle);
 
-bool gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
-							uint32_t *permissions);
+uint32_t gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib);
 
 typedef void (*gatt_db_attribute_read_t) (struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
 						int err, const uint8_t *value,
diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-server.c b/src/shared/gatt-server.c
index 00f36fd..f9e412d 100644
--- a/src/shared/gatt-server.c
+++ b/src/shared/gatt-server.c
@@ -389,10 +389,7 @@ static void process_read_by_type(struct async_read_op *op)
 		return;
 	}
 
-	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr, &perm)) {
-		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_UNLIKELY;
-		goto error;
-	}
+	perm = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr);
 
 	/*
 	 * Check for the READ access permission. Encryption,
@@ -697,10 +694,7 @@ static void write_cb(uint8_t opcode, const void *pdu,
 				(opcode == BT_ATT_OP_WRITE_REQ) ? "Req" : "Cmd",
 				handle);
 
-	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr, &perm)) {
-		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE;
-		goto error;
-	}
+	perm = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr);
 
 	if (!(perm & BT_ATT_PERM_WRITE)) {
 		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_WRITE_NOT_PERMITTED;
@@ -813,10 +807,7 @@ static void handle_read_req(struct bt_gatt_server *server, uint8_t opcode,
 			opcode == BT_ATT_OP_READ_BLOB_REQ ? "Blob " : "",
 			handle);
 
-	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr, &perm)) {
-		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE;
-		goto error;
-	}
+	perm = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr);
 
 	if (perm && !(perm & BT_ATT_PERM_READ)) {
 		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_READ_NOT_PERMITTED;
@@ -919,10 +910,7 @@ static void prep_write_cb(uint8_t opcode, const void *pdu,
 	util_debug(server->debug_callback, server->debug_data,
 				"Prep Write Req - handle: 0x%04x", handle);
 
-	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr, &perm)) {
-		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE;
-		goto error;
-	}
+	perm = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr);
 
 	/*
 	 * TODO: The "Prepare Write" request requires security permission checks
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[Andrei Emeltchenko]

Hi Szymon,

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:15:43AM +0100, Szymon Janc wrote:
> Hi Andrei,
> 
> On Friday 19 of December 2014 12:14:50 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> > Hi Szymon,
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:07:55AM +0100, Szymon Janc wrote:
> > > Hi Andrei,
> > > 
> > > On Friday 19 of December 2014 11:24:40 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> > > > From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since
> > > > those conditions are checked already.
> > > > ---
> > > >  android/gatt.c | 3 +--
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
> > > > index 0258d91..169f6db 100644
> > > > --- a/android/gatt.c
> > > > +++ b/android/gatt.c
> > > > @@ -6311,8 +6311,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
> > > >  	if (!attrib)
> > > >  		return;
> > > >  
> > > > -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions))
> > > > -		return;
> > > > +	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
> > > >  
> > > >  	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
> > > >  		return;
> > > 
> > > Wasn't identical patch already reviewed few weeks ago?
> > > 
> > 
> > It is still valid. No better approach was found.
> 
> I suggested possible solution which you implemented in V2. But you seem to
> ignored comment from Luiz so this didn't moved on.

I still have the patch, it shall be applied anyway on top of this patch
since they are fixing __different__ things. AFAIK Luiz did not propose
anything he was just against the patch.

Best regards 
Andrei Emeltchenko 

Re: [PATCH] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[Andrei Emeltchenko]

ping

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:24:40AM +0200, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>
> 
> gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since
> those conditions are checked already.
> ---
>  android/gatt.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
> index 0258d91..169f6db 100644
> --- a/android/gatt.c
> +++ b/android/gatt.c
> @@ -6311,8 +6311,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
>  	if (!attrib)
>  		return;
>  
> -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions))
> -		return;
> +	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
>  
>  	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
>  		return;
> -- 
> 2.1.0
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] android/gatt: Simplify gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions()

[Szymon Janc]

Hi Andrei,

On Friday 19 of December 2014 12:18:29 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>
> 
> Condition checks inside gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() do not make
> sense. Simplify function.

In general I'm fine with this change but commit message should be improved.
ie. there is API change so this is not just simplification.


> ---
>  android/gatt.c           | 10 +++++-----
>  src/shared/gatt-db.c     | 10 ++--------
>  src/shared/gatt-db.h     |  3 +--
>  src/shared/gatt-server.c | 20 ++++----------------
>  4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
> index 169f6db..6828f2f 100644
> --- a/android/gatt.c
> +++ b/android/gatt.c
> @@ -4790,7 +4790,7 @@ static void read_requested_attributes(void *data, void *user_data)
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> -	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
> +	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Check if it is attribute we didn't declare permissions, like service
> @@ -6311,7 +6311,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
>  	if (!attrib)
>  		return;
>  
> -	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
> +	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
>  
>  	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
>  		return;
> @@ -6359,7 +6359,7 @@ static void write_signed_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
>  	if (!attrib)
>  		return;
>  
> -	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
> +	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
>  
>  	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
>  		return;
> @@ -6430,7 +6430,7 @@ static uint8_t write_req_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
>  	if (!attrib)
>  		return ATT_ECODE_ATTR_NOT_FOUND;
>  
> -	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
> +	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
>  
>  	error = check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions);
>  	if (error)
> @@ -6486,7 +6486,7 @@ static uint8_t write_prep_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
>  	if (!attrib)
>  		return ATT_ECODE_ATTR_NOT_FOUND;
>  
> -	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
> +	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
>  
>  	error = check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions);
>  	if (error)
> diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-db.c b/src/shared/gatt-db.c
> index bb60904..4b91ae6 100644
> --- a/src/shared/gatt-db.c
> +++ b/src/shared/gatt-db.c
> @@ -1301,15 +1301,9 @@ bool gatt_db_attribute_get_incl_data(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> -bool gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
> -							uint32_t *permissions)
> +uint32_t gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib)
>  {
> -	if (!attrib || !permissions)
> -		return false;
> -
> -	*permissions = attrib->permissions;
> -
> -	return true;
> +	return attrib->permissions;
>  }

Let check if attrib is NULL and return 0 in such case. This is to keep convention with
other getter-like functions.

>  
>  static void pending_read_result(struct pending_read *p, int err,
> diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-db.h b/src/shared/gatt-db.h
> index e5fe6bb..1379aae 100644
> --- a/src/shared/gatt-db.h
> +++ b/src/shared/gatt-db.h
> @@ -171,8 +171,7 @@ bool gatt_db_attribute_get_incl_data(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
>  							uint16_t *start_handle,
>  							uint16_t *end_handle);
>  
> -bool gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
> -							uint32_t *permissions);
> +uint32_t gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib);
>  
>  typedef void (*gatt_db_attribute_read_t) (struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
>  						int err, const uint8_t *value,
> diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-server.c b/src/shared/gatt-server.c
> index 00f36fd..f9e412d 100644
> --- a/src/shared/gatt-server.c
> +++ b/src/shared/gatt-server.c
> @@ -389,10 +389,7 @@ static void process_read_by_type(struct async_read_op *op)
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr, &perm)) {
> -		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_UNLIKELY;
> -		goto error;
> -	}
> +	perm = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Check for the READ access permission. Encryption,
> @@ -697,10 +694,7 @@ static void write_cb(uint8_t opcode, const void *pdu,
>  				(opcode == BT_ATT_OP_WRITE_REQ) ? "Req" : "Cmd",
>  				handle);
>  
> -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr, &perm)) {
> -		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE;
> -		goto error;
> -	}
> +	perm = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr);
>  
>  	if (!(perm & BT_ATT_PERM_WRITE)) {
>  		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_WRITE_NOT_PERMITTED;
> @@ -813,10 +807,7 @@ static void handle_read_req(struct bt_gatt_server *server, uint8_t opcode,
>  			opcode == BT_ATT_OP_READ_BLOB_REQ ? "Blob " : "",
>  			handle);
>  
> -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr, &perm)) {
> -		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE;
> -		goto error;
> -	}
> +	perm = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr);
>  
>  	if (perm && !(perm & BT_ATT_PERM_READ)) {
>  		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_READ_NOT_PERMITTED;
> @@ -919,10 +910,7 @@ static void prep_write_cb(uint8_t opcode, const void *pdu,
>  	util_debug(server->debug_callback, server->debug_data,
>  				"Prep Write Req - handle: 0x%04x", handle);
>  
> -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr, &perm)) {
> -		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE;
> -		goto error;
> -	}
> +	perm = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * TODO: The "Prepare Write" request requires security permission checks
> 

-- 
Best regards, 
Szymon Janc

[PATCHv2 1/2] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[Andrei Emeltchenko]

From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>

gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since
those conditions are checked already.
---
 android/gatt.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
index b749705..8542f45 100644
--- a/android/gatt.c
+++ b/android/gatt.c
@@ -6355,8 +6355,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
 	if (!attrib)
 		return;
 
-	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions))
-		return;
+	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
 
 	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
 		return;
-- 
2.1.0

[PATCHv2 2/2] android/gatt: Refactor gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions()

[Andrei Emeltchenko]

From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>

Refactoring makes code cleaner and consistent with other code like
function gatt_db_attribute_get_handle(), etc. Also removes compile
warnings related to unneeded checks like check for !permissions and
warnings related to dead check for construction below:
(!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr, &perm)
those checks are useless since attr is always checked before and check
for &perm is really stupid.
---
 android/gatt.c           | 10 +++++-----
 src/shared/gatt-db.c     | 11 ++++-------
 src/shared/gatt-db.h     |  3 +--
 src/shared/gatt-server.c | 20 ++++----------------
 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
index 8542f45..1d65c2a 100644
--- a/android/gatt.c
+++ b/android/gatt.c
@@ -4817,7 +4817,7 @@ static void read_requested_attributes(void *data, void *user_data)
 		return;
 	}
 
-	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
+	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
 
 	/*
 	 * Check if it is attribute we didn't declare permissions, like service
@@ -6355,7 +6355,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
 	if (!attrib)
 		return;
 
-	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
+	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
 
 	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
 		return;
@@ -6403,7 +6403,7 @@ static void write_signed_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
 	if (!attrib)
 		return;
 
-	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
+	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
 
 	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
 		return;
@@ -6474,7 +6474,7 @@ static uint8_t write_req_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
 	if (!attrib)
 		return ATT_ECODE_ATTR_NOT_FOUND;
 
-	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
+	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
 
 	error = check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions);
 	if (error)
@@ -6530,7 +6530,7 @@ static uint8_t write_prep_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
 	if (!attrib)
 		return ATT_ECODE_ATTR_NOT_FOUND;
 
-	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
+	permissions = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib);
 
 	error = check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions);
 	if (error)
diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-db.c b/src/shared/gatt-db.c
index 9a9cadc..2b997f1 100644
--- a/src/shared/gatt-db.c
+++ b/src/shared/gatt-db.c
@@ -1345,15 +1345,12 @@ bool gatt_db_attribute_get_incl_data(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
 	return true;
 }
 
-bool gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
-							uint32_t *permissions)
+uint32_t gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib)
 {
-	if (!attrib || !permissions)
-		return false;
-
-	*permissions = attrib->permissions;
+	if (!attrib)
+		return 0;
 
-	return true;
+	return attrib->permissions;
 }
 
 static void pending_read_result(struct pending_read *p, int err,
diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-db.h b/src/shared/gatt-db.h
index 1f4005e..169108a 100644
--- a/src/shared/gatt-db.h
+++ b/src/shared/gatt-db.h
@@ -181,8 +181,7 @@ bool gatt_db_attribute_get_incl_data(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
 							uint16_t *start_handle,
 							uint16_t *end_handle);
 
-bool gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
-							uint32_t *permissions);
+uint32_t gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(const struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib);
 
 typedef void (*gatt_db_attribute_read_t) (struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib,
 						int err, const uint8_t *value,
diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-server.c b/src/shared/gatt-server.c
index ed1b274..f12ac47 100644
--- a/src/shared/gatt-server.c
+++ b/src/shared/gatt-server.c
@@ -391,10 +391,7 @@ static void process_read_by_type(struct async_read_op *op)
 		return;
 	}
 
-	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr, &perm)) {
-		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_UNLIKELY;
-		goto error;
-	}
+	perm = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr);
 
 	/*
 	 * Check for the READ access permission. Encryption,
@@ -791,10 +788,7 @@ static void write_cb(uint8_t opcode, const void *pdu,
 				(opcode == BT_ATT_OP_WRITE_REQ) ? "Req" : "Cmd",
 				handle);
 
-	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr, &perm)) {
-		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE;
-		goto error;
-	}
+	perm = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr);
 
 	if (!(perm & BT_ATT_PERM_WRITE)) {
 		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_WRITE_NOT_PERMITTED;
@@ -907,10 +901,7 @@ static void handle_read_req(struct bt_gatt_server *server, uint8_t opcode,
 			opcode == BT_ATT_OP_READ_BLOB_REQ ? "Blob " : "",
 			handle);
 
-	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr, &perm)) {
-		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE;
-		goto error;
-	}
+	perm = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr);
 
 	if (perm && !(perm & BT_ATT_PERM_READ)) {
 		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_READ_NOT_PERMITTED;
@@ -1013,10 +1004,7 @@ static void prep_write_cb(uint8_t opcode, const void *pdu,
 	util_debug(server->debug_callback, server->debug_data,
 				"Prep Write Req - handle: 0x%04x", handle);
 
-	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr, &perm)) {
-		ecode = BT_ATT_ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE;
-		goto error;
-	}
+	perm = gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attr);
 
 	/*
 	 * TODO: The "Prepare Write" request requires security permission checks
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[Szymon Janc]

Hi Andrei,

On Tuesday 13 of January 2015 12:09:18 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>
> 
> gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since
> those conditions are checked already.
> ---
>  android/gatt.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
> index b749705..8542f45 100644
> --- a/android/gatt.c
> +++ b/android/gatt.c
> @@ -6355,8 +6355,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
>  	if (!attrib)
>  		return;
>  
> -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions))
> -		return;
> +	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
>  
>  	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
>  		return;
> 

Both patches applied, thanks.

-- 
Best regards, 
Szymon Janc

Re: [PATCH] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[Andrei Emeltchenko]

Hi Szymon,

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 02:24:40PM +0100, Szymon Janc wrote:
> Hi Andrei,
> 
> On Tuesday 11 of November 2014 10:22:43 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> > Hi Szymon,
> > 
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:05:41PM +0100, Szymon Janc wrote:
> > > Hi Andrei,
> > > 
> > > On Monday 10 of November 2014 15:25:18 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> > > > From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since
> > > > those conditions are checked already.
> > > 
> > > It would make sense to put such warning into commit message if you are 
> > > referring to it in subject.
> > > 
> > > > ---
> > > >  android/gatt.c | 3 +--
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
> > > > index 086bb94..04101f6 100644
> > > > --- a/android/gatt.c
> > > > +++ b/android/gatt.c
> > > > @@ -5992,8 +5992,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd,
> > > > uint16_t cmd_len, if (!attrib)
> > > >  		return;
> > > > 
> > > > -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions))
> > > > -		return;
> > > > +	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
> > > > 
> > > >  	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
> > > >  		return;
> > > 
> > > So if we always pass valid pointers to this function, then maybe we should 
> > > change it definition to something like:
> > > 
> > > uint32_t gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib);
> > > 
> > 
> > Do we really need a helper which just does reference?
> 
> gatt_db_attribute is private structure. 

Ah, true. I will rebase the patch following you suggestion.

Best regards 
Andrei Emeltchenko  

Re: [PATCH] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[Szymon Janc]

Hi Andrei,

On Tuesday 11 of November 2014 10:22:43 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> Hi Szymon,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:05:41PM +0100, Szymon Janc wrote:
> > Hi Andrei,
> > 
> > On Monday 10 of November 2014 15:25:18 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> > > From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since
> > > those conditions are checked already.
> > 
> > It would make sense to put such warning into commit message if you are 
> > referring to it in subject.
> > 
> > > ---
> > >  android/gatt.c | 3 +--
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
> > > index 086bb94..04101f6 100644
> > > --- a/android/gatt.c
> > > +++ b/android/gatt.c
> > > @@ -5992,8 +5992,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd,
> > > uint16_t cmd_len, if (!attrib)
> > >  		return;
> > > 
> > > -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions))
> > > -		return;
> > > +	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
> > > 
> > >  	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
> > >  		return;
> > 
> > So if we always pass valid pointers to this function, then maybe we should 
> > change it definition to something like:
> > 
> > uint32_t gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib);
> > 
> 
> Do we really need a helper which just does reference?

gatt_db_attribute is private structure. 

-- 
Best regards, 
Szymon Janc

Re: [PATCH] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[Andrei Emeltchenko]

Hi Szymon,

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:05:41PM +0100, Szymon Janc wrote:
> Hi Andrei,
> 
> On Monday 10 of November 2014 15:25:18 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> > From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>
> > 
> > gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since
> > those conditions are checked already.
> 
> It would make sense to put such warning into commit message if you are 
> referring to it in subject.
> 
> > ---
> >  android/gatt.c | 3 +--
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
> > index 086bb94..04101f6 100644
> > --- a/android/gatt.c
> > +++ b/android/gatt.c
> > @@ -5992,8 +5992,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd,
> > uint16_t cmd_len, if (!attrib)
> >  		return;
> > 
> > -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions))
> > -		return;
> > +	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
> > 
> >  	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
> >  		return;
> 
> So if we always pass valid pointers to this function, then maybe we should 
> change it definition to something like:
> 
> uint32_t gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib);
> 

Do we really need a helper which just does reference?

Best regards 
Andrei Emeltchenko 

Re: [PATCH] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[Szymon Janc]

Hi Andrei,

On Monday 10 of November 2014 15:25:18 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>
> 
> gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since
> those conditions are checked already.

It would make sense to put such warning into commit message if you are 
referring to it in subject.

> ---
>  android/gatt.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
> index 086bb94..04101f6 100644
> --- a/android/gatt.c
> +++ b/android/gatt.c
> @@ -5992,8 +5992,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd,
> uint16_t cmd_len, if (!attrib)
>  		return;
> 
> -	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions))
> -		return;
> +	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
> 
>  	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
>  		return;

So if we always pass valid pointers to this function, then maybe we should 
change it definition to something like:

uint32_t gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib);


Thoughts?

-- 
BR
Szymon Janc

[PATCH] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings

[Andrei Emeltchenko]

From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>

gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since
those conditions are checked already.
---
 android/gatt.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c
index 086bb94..04101f6 100644
--- a/android/gatt.c
+++ b/android/gatt.c
@@ -5992,8 +5992,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, uint16_t cmd_len,
 	if (!attrib)
 		return;
 
-	if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions))
-		return;
+	gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions);
 
 	if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions))
 		return;
-- 
1.9.1