fix: carry across octets when computing the nRF DFU MAC (+1) (§4)#110
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
find_nrf_dfu_device incremented only the last MAC octet with (+1 & 0xFF), so a device whose address ends in 0xFF produced ...:EE:00 instead of carrying into the previous octet (...:EF:00). The bootloader then advertised at an address the scanner never matched, causing a silent 30 s scan failure. Increment the full 48-bit address with carry (extracted to a tested _increment_mac helper). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JRrm95f1qNZzDM9r2SB6KW
565d417 to
48b8b9c
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
find_nrf_dfu_deviceMAC+1 wrapped without carry (🟡)The nRF DFU bootloader advertises at
original_address + 1. The code incremented only the last octet with(+1) & 0xFF, so an address ending in0xFFbecame…:EE:00instead of carrying into the previous octet (…:EF:00). The bootloader then advertised at an address the scanner never matched → a silent 30 s scan failure on those devices.Fix
Increment the full 48-bit address with carry, extracted into a small, tested
_increment_machelper.Test plan
uv run pytest -q→ 447 passed (new parametrized carry test:…EE:01→…EE:02,…EE:FF→…EF:00,…FF:FF→…DE:00:00… wait double-carry,FF:…FF→00:…00; updated an existing test that encoded the old no-carry behavior)ruff,mypyclean🤖 Generated with Claude Code