Re: ModemManager [PATCH 2/2] Take 3 of: Improvements to SIM PIN handling - Add EnabledFacilityLocks property
I guess I don't have a problem with merging them, although strictly
speaking they refer to different things - locks vs. the PINs needed to
unlock those locks.
Yeah, you're totally right... but at the end the PIN/PUK codes are
directly related to facilities. E.g SIM facility, has PIN code and
PUK code. But it really seems broken to use the enum of codes as index
for facilities, not the best idea.
Two other points to consider regarding lock/PIN handling in the new
API:
* PIN, PUK, PIN2, and PUK2 are PINs for SIM locks. The rest are
device locks, so having them belong to the *.Sim interface
doesn't seem completely right. But 3gpp gloms them all
together, so maybe we should just live with this.
In the 0.6 API they are not handled in the SIM interface. UnlockRetries
and PinRetryCounts are handled in the Modem interface, along with
UnlockRequired; and the EnabledFacilityLocks one is handled in the 3GPP
interface. Anyway, I'm not very convinced yet, on why we do keep
EnabledFacilityLocks in one interface and
UnlockRetries/PinRetryCounts/UnlockRequired in another one. Shouldn't we
have all in the 3GPP-specific interface? Are there CDMA-only modems with
facility locks?
In Russia and Korea there's RUIMs which are basically SIMs for CDMA and
aren't 3GPP at all. They may use the same basic interfaces, but there's
a lot of Qualcomm-iness in there. I kept the PIN/Lock stuff on the
Modem interface so that we could more easily support these types of
devices in the future.
I see, good to know.
* Shouldn't we add an argument to EnablePin and ChangePin that
specifies the lock to which the operation should apply? This
would mirror the CLCK and CPWD AT commands, which take the
facility name as an argument. This would correct what seems to
be an oversight in the current API.
Not an oversight, just that the main use case is to be able to
Enable/Change the SIM PIN, and the idea was to keep it simple. But now
that we report if given facility locks are enabled or disabled, it could
make sense to also allow trying to enable/disable all reported ones. We
would need to move Enable() and Change() out from the SIM object and
back to some interface in the Modem object.
And now that you talk about EnablePin() and ChangePin(); the same logic
could be applied to SendPin() and SendPuk(). SendPin()/SendPuk() should
be used only when UnlockRequired says that there is something to unlock;
they are actually backed by the same CPIN command. So, UnlockRequired
may be saying ph-sim-pin (phone-specific PIN required), and we can
then use SendPin() to send that specific code to the modem. Therefore,
SendPin() is really not related to the SIM, but to UnlockRequired, and
so they ought to be in the same interface (in the 0.6 API, SendPin() and
SendPuk() are managed in the SIM object).
That makes some sense. They were originally added when the world was a
simpler place :)
If we do move SendPin(), SendPuk, ChangePin(), EnablePin() out of the
SIM object, not sure if it is worth having it around.
And a new brainstorm here... given that we're going to break the DBus
API, we can try to rework and consolidate all related properties.
We could assume that each facility has 2 codes (PIN, PUK), and that the
PUK code will only be required once all PIN attempts have been used
(didn't look at any documentation, but that seems to me always the
case).
That looks to be the case, yes. The non-call-barring CLCK facilities
have corresponding lock codes that would be reported by +CPIN?.
If we do assume this, we could then setup a FacilityLocks dictionary
with signature a{ubuu} where:
* The uint32 in the first position identifies the facility.
* The boolean in the second position tells whether the facility has a
lock.
* The uint32 in the third position has the PIN retry count.
* The uint32 in the fourth position has the PUK retry count.
Then, we could have UnlockRequired be just a uint32 where we identify
the 'facility' locked (as opposed to identifying which pin code we
need).
I assume you're suggesting we do an enum for facilities? (which is
fine)
We already have that enum, MMModemGsmFacility is called in git master.
So, if we get SIM facility in UnlockRequired, we could then check the
corresponding entry in the FacilityLocks dictionary and see how many
retry counts we have for PIN and PUK. If retries for PIN is 0; it means
we need the PUK code, unless PUK retries is also 0, which would mean we
need to buy a new SIM card. Instead of just the key of the dictionary
entry, we could also have the
Re: ModemManager [PATCH 2/2] Take 3 of: Improvements to SIM PIN handling - Add EnabledFacilityLocks property
On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 09:11 +0100, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
I guess I don't have a problem with merging them, although strictly
speaking they refer to different things - locks vs. the PINs needed to
unlock those locks.
Yeah, you're totally right... but at the end the PIN/PUK codes are
directly related to facilities. E.g SIM facility, has PIN code and
PUK code. But it really seems broken to use the enum of codes as index
for facilities, not the best idea.
Two other points to consider regarding lock/PIN handling in the new
API:
* PIN, PUK, PIN2, and PUK2 are PINs for SIM locks. The rest are
device locks, so having them belong to the *.Sim interface
doesn't seem completely right. But 3gpp gloms them all
together, so maybe we should just live with this.
In the 0.6 API they are not handled in the SIM interface. UnlockRetries
and PinRetryCounts are handled in the Modem interface, along with
UnlockRequired; and the EnabledFacilityLocks one is handled in the 3GPP
interface. Anyway, I'm not very convinced yet, on why we do keep
EnabledFacilityLocks in one interface and
UnlockRetries/PinRetryCounts/UnlockRequired in another one. Shouldn't we
have all in the 3GPP-specific interface? Are there CDMA-only modems with
facility locks?
In Russia and Korea there's RUIMs which are basically SIMs for CDMA and
aren't 3GPP at all. They may use the same basic interfaces, but there's
a lot of Qualcomm-iness in there. I kept the PIN/Lock stuff on the
Modem interface so that we could more easily support these types of
devices in the future.
I see, good to know.
* Shouldn't we add an argument to EnablePin and ChangePin that
specifies the lock to which the operation should apply? This
would mirror the CLCK and CPWD AT commands, which take the
facility name as an argument. This would correct what seems to
be an oversight in the current API.
Not an oversight, just that the main use case is to be able to
Enable/Change the SIM PIN, and the idea was to keep it simple. But now
that we report if given facility locks are enabled or disabled, it could
make sense to also allow trying to enable/disable all reported ones. We
would need to move Enable() and Change() out from the SIM object and
back to some interface in the Modem object.
And now that you talk about EnablePin() and ChangePin(); the same logic
could be applied to SendPin() and SendPuk(). SendPin()/SendPuk() should
be used only when UnlockRequired says that there is something to unlock;
they are actually backed by the same CPIN command. So, UnlockRequired
may be saying ph-sim-pin (phone-specific PIN required), and we can
then use SendPin() to send that specific code to the modem. Therefore,
SendPin() is really not related to the SIM, but to UnlockRequired, and
so they ought to be in the same interface (in the 0.6 API, SendPin() and
SendPuk() are managed in the SIM object).
That makes some sense. They were originally added when the world was a
simpler place :)
If we do move SendPin(), SendPuk, ChangePin(), EnablePin() out of the
SIM object, not sure if it is worth having it around.
And a new brainstorm here... given that we're going to break the DBus
API, we can try to rework and consolidate all related properties.
We could assume that each facility has 2 codes (PIN, PUK), and that the
PUK code will only be required once all PIN attempts have been used
(didn't look at any documentation, but that seems to me always the
case).
That looks to be the case, yes. The non-call-barring CLCK facilities
have corresponding lock codes that would be reported by +CPIN?.
If we do assume this, we could then setup a FacilityLocks dictionary
with signature a{ubuu} where:
* The uint32 in the first position identifies the facility.
* The boolean in the second position tells whether the facility has a
lock.
* The uint32 in the third position has the PIN retry count.
* The uint32 in the fourth position has the PUK retry count.
Then, we could have UnlockRequired be just a uint32 where we identify
the 'facility' locked (as opposed to identifying which pin code we
need).
I assume you're suggesting we do an enum for facilities? (which is
fine)
We already have that enum, MMModemGsmFacility is called in git master.
So, if we get SIM facility in UnlockRequired, we could then check the
corresponding entry in the FacilityLocks dictionary and see how many
retry counts we have for PIN and PUK. If retries for PIN is 0; it means
we need the PUK code, unless PUK retries is also 0, which would mean we
need to buy a new SIM card. Instead of just the key of the dictionary
entry, we could also have the UnlockRequired property be a (ubuu); which
would
Re: ModemManager [PATCH 2/2] Take 3 of: Improvements to SIM PIN handling - Add EnabledFacilityLocks property
I guess I don't have a problem with merging them, although strictly
speaking they refer to different things - locks vs. the PINs needed to
unlock those locks.
Yeah, you're totally right... but at the end the PIN/PUK codes are
directly related to facilities. E.g SIM facility, has PIN code and
PUK code. But it really seems broken to use the enum of codes as index
for facilities, not the best idea.
Two other points to consider regarding lock/PIN handling in the new
API:
* PIN, PUK, PIN2, and PUK2 are PINs for SIM locks. The rest are
device locks, so having them belong to the *.Sim interface
doesn't seem completely right. But 3gpp gloms them all
together, so maybe we should just live with this.
In the 0.6 API they are not handled in the SIM interface. UnlockRetries
and PinRetryCounts are handled in the Modem interface, along with
UnlockRequired; and the EnabledFacilityLocks one is handled in the 3GPP
interface. Anyway, I'm not very convinced yet, on why we do keep
EnabledFacilityLocks in one interface and
UnlockRetries/PinRetryCounts/UnlockRequired in another one. Shouldn't we
have all in the 3GPP-specific interface? Are there CDMA-only modems with
facility locks?
In Russia and Korea there's RUIMs which are basically SIMs for CDMA and
aren't 3GPP at all. They may use the same basic interfaces, but there's
a lot of Qualcomm-iness in there. I kept the PIN/Lock stuff on the
Modem interface so that we could more easily support these types of
devices in the future.
I see, good to know.
* Shouldn't we add an argument to EnablePin and ChangePin that
specifies the lock to which the operation should apply? This
would mirror the CLCK and CPWD AT commands, which take the
facility name as an argument. This would correct what seems to
be an oversight in the current API.
Not an oversight, just that the main use case is to be able to
Enable/Change the SIM PIN, and the idea was to keep it simple. But now
that we report if given facility locks are enabled or disabled, it could
make sense to also allow trying to enable/disable all reported ones. We
would need to move Enable() and Change() out from the SIM object and
back to some interface in the Modem object.
And now that you talk about EnablePin() and ChangePin(); the same logic
could be applied to SendPin() and SendPuk(). SendPin()/SendPuk() should
be used only when UnlockRequired says that there is something to unlock;
they are actually backed by the same CPIN command. So, UnlockRequired
may be saying ph-sim-pin (phone-specific PIN required), and we can
then use SendPin() to send that specific code to the modem. Therefore,
SendPin() is really not related to the SIM, but to UnlockRequired, and
so they ought to be in the same interface (in the 0.6 API, SendPin() and
SendPuk() are managed in the SIM object).
That makes some sense. They were originally added when the world was a
simpler place :)
If we do move SendPin(), SendPuk, ChangePin(), EnablePin() out of the
SIM object, not sure if it is worth having it around.
And a new brainstorm here... given that we're going to break the DBus
API, we can try to rework and consolidate all related properties.
We could assume that each facility has 2 codes (PIN, PUK), and that the
PUK code will only be required once all PIN attempts have been used
(didn't look at any documentation, but that seems to me always the
case).
That looks to be the case, yes. The non-call-barring CLCK facilities
have corresponding lock codes that would be reported by +CPIN?.
If we do assume this, we could then setup a FacilityLocks dictionary
with signature a{ubuu} where:
* The uint32 in the first position identifies the facility.
* The boolean in the second position tells whether the facility has a
lock.
* The uint32 in the third position has the PIN retry count.
* The uint32 in the fourth position has the PUK retry count.
Then, we could have UnlockRequired be just a uint32 where we identify
the 'facility' locked (as opposed to identifying which pin code we
need).
I assume you're suggesting we do an enum for facilities? (which is
fine)
We already have that enum, MMModemGsmFacility is called in git master.
So, if we get SIM facility in UnlockRequired, we could then check the
corresponding entry in the FacilityLocks dictionary and see how many
retry counts we have for PIN and PUK. If retries for PIN is 0; it means
we need the PUK code, unless PUK retries is also 0, which would mean we
need to buy a new SIM card. Instead of just the key of the dictionary
entry, we could also have the UnlockRequired property be a (ubuu); which
would contain the whole entry of the dictionary.
I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to have a Modem.Lock interface,
with all this stuff (methods to
Re: ModemManager [PATCH 2/2] Take 3 of: Improvements to SIM PIN handling - Add EnabledFacilityLocks property
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 20:14 +0100, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
Hey hey,
I guess I don't have a problem with merging them, although strictly
speaking they refer to different things - locks vs. the PINs needed to
unlock those locks.
Yeah, you're totally right... but at the end the PIN/PUK codes are
directly related to facilities. E.g SIM facility, has PIN code and
PUK code. But it really seems broken to use the enum of codes as index
for facilities, not the best idea.
Two other points to consider regarding lock/PIN handling in the new
API:
* PIN, PUK, PIN2, and PUK2 are PINs for SIM locks. The rest are
device locks, so having them belong to the *.Sim interface
doesn't seem completely right. But 3gpp gloms them all
together, so maybe we should just live with this.
In the 0.6 API they are not handled in the SIM interface. UnlockRetries
and PinRetryCounts are handled in the Modem interface, along with
UnlockRequired; and the EnabledFacilityLocks one is handled in the 3GPP
interface. Anyway, I'm not very convinced yet, on why we do keep
EnabledFacilityLocks in one interface and
UnlockRetries/PinRetryCounts/UnlockRequired in another one. Shouldn't we
have all in the 3GPP-specific interface? Are there CDMA-only modems with
facility locks?
In Russia and Korea there's RUIMs which are basically SIMs for CDMA and
aren't 3GPP at all. They may use the same basic interfaces, but there's
a lot of Qualcomm-iness in there. I kept the PIN/Lock stuff on the
Modem interface so that we could more easily support these types of
devices in the future.
* Shouldn't we add an argument to EnablePin and ChangePin that
specifies the lock to which the operation should apply? This
would mirror the CLCK and CPWD AT commands, which take the
facility name as an argument. This would correct what seems to
be an oversight in the current API.
Not an oversight, just that the main use case is to be able to
Enable/Change the SIM PIN, and the idea was to keep it simple. But now
that we report if given facility locks are enabled or disabled, it could
make sense to also allow trying to enable/disable all reported ones. We
would need to move Enable() and Change() out from the SIM object and
back to some interface in the Modem object.
And now that you talk about EnablePin() and ChangePin(); the same logic
could be applied to SendPin() and SendPuk(). SendPin()/SendPuk() should
be used only when UnlockRequired says that there is something to unlock;
they are actually backed by the same CPIN command. So, UnlockRequired
may be saying ph-sim-pin (phone-specific PIN required), and we can
then use SendPin() to send that specific code to the modem. Therefore,
SendPin() is really not related to the SIM, but to UnlockRequired, and
so they ought to be in the same interface (in the 0.6 API, SendPin() and
SendPuk() are managed in the SIM object).
That makes some sense. They were originally added when the world was a
simpler place :)
And a new brainstorm here... given that we're going to break the DBus
API, we can try to rework and consolidate all related properties.
We could assume that each facility has 2 codes (PIN, PUK), and that the
PUK code will only be required once all PIN attempts have been used
(didn't look at any documentation, but that seems to me always the
case).
That looks to be the case, yes. The non-call-barring CLCK facilities
have corresponding lock codes that would be reported by +CPIN?.
If we do assume this, we could then setup a FacilityLocks dictionary
with signature a{ubuu} where:
* The uint32 in the first position identifies the facility.
* The boolean in the second position tells whether the facility has a
lock.
* The uint32 in the third position has the PIN retry count.
* The uint32 in the fourth position has the PUK retry count.
Then, we could have UnlockRequired be just a uint32 where we identify
the 'facility' locked (as opposed to identifying which pin code we
need).
I assume you're suggesting we do an enum for facilities? (which is
fine)
So, if we get SIM facility in UnlockRequired, we could then check the
corresponding entry in the FacilityLocks dictionary and see how many
retry counts we have for PIN and PUK. If retries for PIN is 0; it means
we need the PUK code, unless PUK retries is also 0, which would mean we
need to buy a new SIM card. Instead of just the key of the dictionary
entry, we could also have the UnlockRequired property be a (ubuu); which
would contain the whole entry of the dictionary.
Thoughts?
Sounds OK to me, any thoughts Eric?
Dan
___
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: ModemManager [PATCH 2/2] Take 3 of: Improvements to SIM PIN handling - Add EnabledFacilityLocks property
Hey Eric Dan, On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 15:10 -0500, Eric Shienbrood wrote: Subject: [PATCH] Added new property to track which facility locks are enabled. The property EnabledFacilityLocks on the .Modem.Gsm.Card interface is a bit mask that indicates which of the various personalization codes from 3GPP TS 22.022, plus the SIM PIN lock and SIM PIN2 lock, are enabled. The set of facility locks supported by the modem is determined at the time the modem is initialized, and the state of each supported lock (enabled or disabled) is determined. When the state of a lock changes, a property-change signal is sent out. Note that ModemManager only supports enabling and disabling SIM-PIN, via the EnablePin method on Modem.Gsm.Card. One of the changes I did in the new API was to have a new enum being reported in the UnlockRequired property instead of a string. I called this MMModemLock, see: http://www.lanedo.com/~aleksander/modem-manager/api-2023/mm-Flags-and-Enumerations.html#MMModemLock I also included your new MMModemGsmFacility enum in the new API, as well, named MMModem3gppFacility: http://www.lanedo.com/~aleksander/modem-manager/api-2023/mm-Flags-and-Enumerations.html#MMModem3gppFacility Any problem in merging these both types? It could be just making MMModemLock be a flags value instead of an enum. As far as I can see MMModem3gppFacility is a subset of MMModemLock. Cheers, -- Aleksander ___ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: ModemManager [PATCH 2/2] Take 3 of: Improvements to SIM PIN handling - Add EnabledFacilityLocks property
I guess I don't have a problem with merging them, although strictly speaking they refer to different things - locks vs. the PINs needed to unlock those locks. Two other points to consider regarding lock/PIN handling in the new API: - PIN, PUK, PIN2, and PUK2 are PINs for SIM locks. The rest are device locks, so having them belong to the *.Sim interface doesn't seem completely right. But 3gpp gloms them all together, so maybe we should just live with this. - Shouldn't we add an argument to EnablePin and ChangePin that specifies the lock to which the operation should apply? This would mirror the CLCK and CPWD AT commands, which take the facility name as an argument. This would correct what seems to be an oversight in the current API. Eric On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Aleksander Morgado aleksan...@lanedo.comwrote: Hey Eric Dan, On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 15:10 -0500, Eric Shienbrood wrote: Subject: [PATCH] Added new property to track which facility locks are enabled. The property EnabledFacilityLocks on the .Modem.Gsm.Card interface is a bit mask that indicates which of the various personalization codes from 3GPP TS 22.022, plus the SIM PIN lock and SIM PIN2 lock, are enabled. The set of facility locks supported by the modem is determined at the time the modem is initialized, and the state of each supported lock (enabled or disabled) is determined. When the state of a lock changes, a property-change signal is sent out. Note that ModemManager only supports enabling and disabling SIM-PIN, via the EnablePin method on Modem.Gsm.Card. One of the changes I did in the new API was to have a new enum being reported in the UnlockRequired property instead of a string. I called this MMModemLock, see: http://www.lanedo.com/~aleksander/modem-manager/api-2023/mm-Flags-and-Enumerations.html#MMModemLock I also included your new MMModemGsmFacility enum in the new API, as well, named MMModem3gppFacility: http://www.lanedo.com/~aleksander/modem-manager/api-2023/mm-Flags-and-Enumerations.html#MMModem3gppFacility Any problem in merging these both types? It could be just making MMModemLock be a flags value instead of an enum. As far as I can see MMModem3gppFacility is a subset of MMModemLock. Cheers, -- Aleksander ___ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: ModemManager [PATCH 2/2] Take 3 of: Improvements to SIM PIN handling - Add EnabledFacilityLocks property
Hey hey,
I guess I don't have a problem with merging them, although strictly
speaking they refer to different things - locks vs. the PINs needed to
unlock those locks.
Yeah, you're totally right... but at the end the PIN/PUK codes are
directly related to facilities. E.g SIM facility, has PIN code and
PUK code. But it really seems broken to use the enum of codes as index
for facilities, not the best idea.
Two other points to consider regarding lock/PIN handling in the new
API:
* PIN, PUK, PIN2, and PUK2 are PINs for SIM locks. The rest are
device locks, so having them belong to the *.Sim interface
doesn't seem completely right. But 3gpp gloms them all
together, so maybe we should just live with this.
In the 0.6 API they are not handled in the SIM interface. UnlockRetries
and PinRetryCounts are handled in the Modem interface, along with
UnlockRequired; and the EnabledFacilityLocks one is handled in the 3GPP
interface. Anyway, I'm not very convinced yet, on why we do keep
EnabledFacilityLocks in one interface and
UnlockRetries/PinRetryCounts/UnlockRequired in another one. Shouldn't we
have all in the 3GPP-specific interface? Are there CDMA-only modems with
facility locks?
* Shouldn't we add an argument to EnablePin and ChangePin that
specifies the lock to which the operation should apply? This
would mirror the CLCK and CPWD AT commands, which take the
facility name as an argument. This would correct what seems to
be an oversight in the current API.
Not an oversight, just that the main use case is to be able to
Enable/Change the SIM PIN, and the idea was to keep it simple. But now
that we report if given facility locks are enabled or disabled, it could
make sense to also allow trying to enable/disable all reported ones. We
would need to move Enable() and Change() out from the SIM object and
back to some interface in the Modem object.
And now that you talk about EnablePin() and ChangePin(); the same logic
could be applied to SendPin() and SendPuk(). SendPin()/SendPuk() should
be used only when UnlockRequired says that there is something to unlock;
they are actually backed by the same CPIN command. So, UnlockRequired
may be saying ph-sim-pin (phone-specific PIN required), and we can
then use SendPin() to send that specific code to the modem. Therefore,
SendPin() is really not related to the SIM, but to UnlockRequired, and
so they ought to be in the same interface (in the 0.6 API, SendPin() and
SendPuk() are managed in the SIM object).
And a new brainstorm here... given that we're going to break the DBus
API, we can try to rework and consolidate all related properties.
We could assume that each facility has 2 codes (PIN, PUK), and that the
PUK code will only be required once all PIN attempts have been used
(didn't look at any documentation, but that seems to me always the
case).
If we do assume this, we could then setup a FacilityLocks dictionary
with signature a{ubuu} where:
* The uint32 in the first position identifies the facility.
* The boolean in the second position tells whether the facility has a
lock.
* The uint32 in the third position has the PIN retry count.
* The uint32 in the fourth position has the PUK retry count.
Then, we could have UnlockRequired be just a uint32 where we identify
the 'facility' locked (as opposed to identifying which pin code we
need).
So, if we get SIM facility in UnlockRequired, we could then check the
corresponding entry in the FacilityLocks dictionary and see how many
retry counts we have for PIN and PUK. If retries for PIN is 0; it means
we need the PUK code, unless PUK retries is also 0, which would mean we
need to buy a new SIM card. Instead of just the key of the dictionary
entry, we could also have the UnlockRequired property be a (ubuu); which
would contain the whole entry of the dictionary.
Thoughts?
--
Aleksander
___
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
