BLE: Add HCI_LE_Meta_Extended_Advertising_Report event

[tryger]

Bluetooth Core Specification v6.0 | Vol 4, Part E, Section 7.7.65.13

Example packet show()

###[ HCI header ]###
  type      = Event
###[ HCI Event header ]###
     code      = 0x3e
     len       = 80
###[ HCI_LE_Meta ]###
        event     = extended_advertising_report
###[ Extended Advertising Reports ]###
           num_reports= 2
           \reports   \
            |###[ Extended Advertising Report ]###
            |  type      = 18
            |  atype     = random
            |  addr      = a1:b2:c3:d4:e5:f6
            |  pri_phy   = le_1m
            |  sec_phy   = 0
            |  adv_sid   = 255
            |  tx_pwr    = 127
            |  rssi      = -85
            |  interval  = 0
            |  datype    = public
            |  daddr     = 00:00:00:00:00:00
            |  len       = 16
            |  \data      \
            |   |###[ EIR Header ]###
            |   |  len       = 3
            |   |  type      = complete_list_16_bit_svc_uuids
            |   |###[ Complete list of 16-bit service UUIDs ]###
            |   |     svc_uuids = [0xffff]
            |   |###[ EIR Header ]###
            |   |  len       = 11
            |   |  type      = svc_data_16_bit_uuid
            |   |###[ EIR Service Data - 16-bit UUID ]###
            |   |     svc_uuid  = 0xffff
            |   |###[ Raw ]###
            |   |        load      = b'scapy\x00\x00\x00'
            |###[ Extended Advertising Report ]###
            |  type      = 26
            |  atype     = random
            |  addr      = a1:b2:c3:d4:e5:f6
            |  pri_phy   = le_1m
            |  sec_phy   = 0
            |  adv_sid   = 255
            |  tx_pwr    = 127
            |  rssi      = -85
            |  interval  = 0
            |  datype    = public
            |  daddr     = 00:00:00:00:00:00
            |  len       = 14
            |  \data      \
            |   |###[ EIR Header ]###
            |   |  len       = 13
            |   |  type      = mfg_specific_data
            |   |###[ EIR Manufacturer Specific Data ]###
            |   |     company_id= 0xffff
            |   |###[ Raw ]###
            |   |        load      = b'scapy\x00\x01\x02\x03\x04'

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.59%. Comparing base (874abdc) to head (699abad).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4686      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.13%   78.59%   -3.55%     
==========================================
  Files         361      336      -25     
  Lines       86829    81635    -5194     
==========================================
- Hits        71321    64158    -7163     
- Misses      15508    17477    +1969     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
scapy/layers/bluetooth.py	90.46% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️

... and 287 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[antoniovazquezblanco]

Extract of the Bluetooth Core Spec

[antoniovazquezblanco]

One last comment, this may be quite important:

You have implemented an array of a structure with 10+ fields but as I understand from the documentation, it seems that it should be a struct of 10+ arrays...

I am not sure this is explanation is easy to understand, please, let me know if I can clarify this comment. Thanks

[tryger]

You are right that in the Spec is not really clear how this is implemented. Based on empirical observations from captured communications of this event, I concluded this event is implemented as my commit does: It contains num_reports report structures with the extended advertisement format, specified in the spec.

It is implemented similarly to HCI_LE_Advertising_Report (Section 7.7.65.2), which is already implemented in Scapy.

Hope this clarifies your doubt.

[antoniovazquezblanco]

Hope this clarifies your doubt.

Yes! It also clarifies that the HCI_LE_Advertising_Report packet may be ok, wich I had my doubts...

Thanks! :D

[tryger]

I renamed fields to Spec names; that makes more sense to me, despite the fact that for other events the field names are shortened.

Can somebody clarify if there is a reason for keeping some field names not matching the Specification, or maybe it is legacy?

[antoniovazquezblanco]

This field would ideally be a bitfield or a bitenumfield. I understand this may not be fun to write and could possibly be added in future improvements.

[antoniovazquezblanco]

Done!

[antoniovazquezblanco]

Enum is missing a couple of possible values

[antoniovazquezblanco]

Done!

[antoniovazquezblanco]

Just a couple of comments more... Sorry I think i wrongly approved before the last two comments where added...

[tryger]

Thanks for your revision. I pushed a commit including your proposed changes.

However, I am not completely sure independent BitFields for event_type is the best option; I'd rather prefer implementing this as something like a named BitField struct. I think this Field is not implemented and would be a nice feature to include.

[antoniovazquezblanco]

AFAIK there is no way to create a composable field in the field list.

If you want to group that as a field, you may create a Packet for the type. That would allow you to compose it. It is not a bad solution from my point of view but maybe other maintainers have different ideas.