Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] shared/gatt-client: Add CSRK part to support signed write

[Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>]

Hi Chao Jie,

>>> +bool bt_gatt_client_set_local_csrk(struct bt_gatt_client *client,
>>> +				bool valid_local_csrk,
>>> +				uint8_t key[16]);
>> 
>> why do we have the parameter valid_local_csrk. I find that highly confusing. If you
>> do not have a valid CSRK, then do not call this function. It should be that simple.
>> 
> 
> My initial purpose to set this parameter valid_local_csrk here, user can call one API
> to set flag valid_local_csrk ture/false and CSRK key in one time.
> According to your proposal, I think it really result in confusion for user.
> 
> So for more clear to call API , I think we should split two API for upper layer:
> 1. When we need to set CSRK , check the CSRK is valid , then call bt_gatt_client_set_local_csrk
>  Just to pass one parameter key to function and in the function to set flag valid_local_csrk is true.
> 
> 2 When two device dispair each other, we should give user possibility to unset flag and CSRK.
>  So in this condition , we have to create bt_gatt_client_unset_local_csrk(struct bt_gatt_client *client)
>  to clear CSRK and set flag valid_local_csrk to false.
> 
> Do you think this thought would be ok for you?

I am not really worried about these details anyway. If you remove the bond between two devices, then the connection will be terminated. Which means that next time around you get a new bt_att object. If you do not have any CSRK the next time, you just not set them in the first place.

Regards

Marcel