linux/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c

2229 lines
50 KiB

include cleanup: Update gfp.h and slab.h includes to prepare for breaking implicit slab.h inclusion from percpu.h percpu.h is included by sched.h and module.h and thus ends up being included when building most .c files. percpu.h includes slab.h which in turn includes gfp.h making everything defined by the two files universally available and complicating inclusion dependencies. percpu.h -> slab.h dependency is about to be removed. Prepare for this change by updating users of gfp and slab facilities include those headers directly instead of assuming availability. As this conversion needs to touch large number of source files, the following script is used as the basis of conversion. http://userweb.kernel.org/~tj/misc/slabh-sweep.py The script does the followings. * Scan files for gfp and slab usages and update includes such that only the necessary includes are there. ie. if only gfp is used, gfp.h, if slab is used, slab.h. * When the script inserts a new include, it looks at the include blocks and try to put the new include such that its order conforms to its surrounding. It's put in the include block which contains core kernel includes, in the same order that the rest are ordered - alphabetical, Christmas tree, rev-Xmas-tree or at the end if there doesn't seem to be any matching order. * If the script can't find a place to put a new include (mostly because the file doesn't have fitting include block), it prints out an error message indicating which .h file needs to be added to the file. The conversion was done in the following steps. 1. The initial automatic conversion of all .c files updated slightly over 4000 files, deleting around 700 includes and adding ~480 gfp.h and ~3000 slab.h inclusions. The script emitted errors for ~400 files. 2. Each error was manually checked. Some didn't need the inclusion, some needed manual addition while adding it to implementation .h or embedding .c file was more appropriate for others. This step added inclusions to around 150 files. 3. The script was run again and the output was compared to the edits from #2 to make sure no file was left behind. 4. Several build tests were done and a couple of problems were fixed. e.g. lib/decompress_*.c used malloc/free() wrappers around slab APIs requiring slab.h to be added manually. 5. The script was run on all .h files but without automatically editing them as sprinkling gfp.h and slab.h inclusions around .h files could easily lead to inclusion dependency hell. Most gfp.h inclusion directives were ignored as stuff from gfp.h was usually wildly available and often used in preprocessor macros. Each slab.h inclusion directive was examined and added manually as necessary. 6. percpu.h was updated not to include slab.h. 7. Build test were done on the following configurations and failures were fixed. CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL was turned off for all tests (as my distributed build env didn't work with gcov compiles) and a few more options had to be turned off depending on archs to make things build (like ipr on powerpc/64 which failed due to missing writeq). * x86 and x86_64 UP and SMP allmodconfig and a custom test config. * powerpc and powerpc64 SMP allmodconfig * sparc and sparc64 SMP allmodconfig * ia64 SMP allmodconfig * s390 SMP allmodconfig * alpha SMP allmodconfig * um on x86_64 SMP allmodconfig 8. percpu.h modifications were reverted so that it could be applied as a separate patch and serve as bisection point. Given the fact that I had only a couple of failures from tests on step 6, I'm fairly confident about the coverage of this conversion patch. If there is a breakage, it's likely to be something in one of the arch headers which should be easily discoverable easily on most builds of the specific arch. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Guess-its-ok-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>
2010-03-24 17:04:11 +09:00
Bluetooth: Add enhanced security model for Simple Pairing The current security model is based around the flags AUTH, ENCRYPT and SECURE. Starting with support for the Bluetooth 2.1 specification this is no longer sufficient. The different security levels are now defined as SDP, LOW, MEDIUM and SECURE. Previously it was possible to set each security independently, but this actually doesn't make a lot of sense. For Bluetooth the encryption depends on a previous successful authentication. Also you can only update your existing link key if you successfully created at least one before. And of course the update of link keys without having proper encryption in place is a security issue. The new security levels from the Bluetooth 2.1 specification are now used internally. All old settings are mapped to the new values and this way it ensures that old applications still work. The only limitation is that it is no longer possible to set authentication without also enabling encryption. No application should have done this anyway since this is actually a security issue. Without encryption the integrity of the authentication can't be guaranteed. As default for a new L2CAP or RFCOMM connection, the LOW security level is used. The only exception here are the service discovery sessions on PSM 1 where SDP level is used. To have similar security strength as with a Bluetooth 2.0 and before combination key, the MEDIUM level should be used. This is according to the Bluetooth specification. The MEDIUM level will not require any kind of man-in-the-middle (MITM) protection. Only the HIGH security level will require this. Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
2009-01-15 21:58:04 +01:00
bluetooth : __rfcomm_dlc_close lock fix Lockdep warning will be trigged while rfcomm connection closing. The locks taken in rfcomm_dev_add: rfcomm_dev_lock --> d->lock In __rfcomm_dlc_close: d->lock --> rfcomm_dev_lock (in rfcomm_dev_state_change) There's two way to fix it, one is in rfcomm_dev_add we first locking d->lock then the rfcomm_dev_lock The other (in this patch), remove the locking of d->lock for rfcomm_dev_state_change because just locking "d->state = BT_CLOSED;" is enough. [ 295.002046] ======================================================= [ 295.002046] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [ 295.002046] 2.6.25-rc7 #1 [ 295.002046] ------------------------------------------------------- [ 295.002046] krfcommd/2705 is trying to acquire lock: [ 295.002046] (rfcomm_dev_lock){-.--}, at: [<f89a090a>] rfcomm_dev_state_change+0x6a/0xd0 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [ 295.002046] but task is already holding lock: [ 295.002046] (&d->lock){--..}, at: [<f899c533>] __rfcomm_dlc_close+0x43/0xd0 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [ 295.002046] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 295.002046] [ 295.002046] [ 295.002046] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 295.002046] [ 295.002046] -> #1 (&d->lock){--..}: [ 295.002046] [<c0149b23>] check_prev_add+0xd3/0x200 [ 295.002046] [<c0149ce5>] check_prevs_add+0x95/0xe0 [ 295.002046] [<c0149f6f>] validate_chain+0x23f/0x320 [ 295.002046] [<c014b7b1>] __lock_acquire+0x1c1/0x760 [ 295.002046] [<c014c349>] lock_acquire+0x79/0xb0 [ 295.002046] [<c03d6b99>] _spin_lock+0x39/0x80 [ 295.002046] [<f89a01c0>] rfcomm_dev_add+0x240/0x360 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<f89a047e>] rfcomm_create_dev+0x6e/0xe0 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<f89a0823>] rfcomm_dev_ioctl+0x33/0x60 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<f899facc>] rfcomm_sock_ioctl+0x2c/0x50 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<c0363d38>] sock_ioctl+0x118/0x240 [ 295.002046] [<c0194196>] vfs_ioctl+0x76/0x90 [ 295.002046] [<c0194446>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x56/0x140 [ 295.002046] [<c0194569>] sys_ioctl+0x39/0x60 [ 295.002046] [<c0104faa>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb [ 295.002046] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff [ 295.002046] [ 295.002046] -> #0 (rfcomm_dev_lock){-.--}: [ 295.002046] [<c0149a84>] check_prev_add+0x34/0x200 [ 295.002046] [<c0149ce5>] check_prevs_add+0x95/0xe0 [ 295.002046] [<c0149f6f>] validate_chain+0x23f/0x320 [ 295.002046] [<c014b7b1>] __lock_acquire+0x1c1/0x760 [ 295.002046] [<c014c349>] lock_acquire+0x79/0xb0 [ 295.002046] [<c03d6639>] _read_lock+0x39/0x80 [ 295.002046] [<f89a090a>] rfcomm_dev_state_change+0x6a/0xd0 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<f899c548>] __rfcomm_dlc_close+0x58/0xd0 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<f899d44f>] rfcomm_recv_ua+0x6f/0x120 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<f899e061>] rfcomm_recv_frame+0x171/0x1e0 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<f899e357>] rfcomm_run+0xe7/0x550 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<c013c18c>] kthread+0x5c/0xa0 [ 295.002046] [<c0105c07>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10 [ 295.002046] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff [ 295.002046] [ 295.002046] other info that might help us debug this: [ 295.002046] [ 295.002046] 2 locks held by krfcommd/2705: [ 295.002046] #0: (rfcomm_mutex){--..}, at: [<f899e2eb>] rfcomm_run+0x7b/0x550 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] #1: (&d->lock){--..}, at: [<f899c533>] __rfcomm_dlc_close+0x43/0xd0 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [ 295.002046] stack backtrace: [ 295.002046] Pid: 2705, comm: krfcommd Not tainted 2.6.25-rc7 #1 [ 295.002046] [<c0128a38>] ? printk+0x18/0x20 [ 295.002046] [<c014927f>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x6f/0x80 [ 295.002046] [<c0149a84>] check_prev_add+0x34/0x200 [ 295.002046] [<c0149ce5>] check_prevs_add+0x95/0xe0 [ 295.002046] [<c0149f6f>] validate_chain+0x23f/0x320 [ 295.002046] [<c014b7b1>] __lock_acquire+0x1c1/0x760 [ 295.002046] [<c014c349>] lock_acquire+0x79/0xb0 [ 295.002046] [<f89a090a>] ? rfcomm_dev_state_change+0x6a/0xd0 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<c03d6639>] _read_lock+0x39/0x80 [ 295.002046] [<f89a090a>] ? rfcomm_dev_state_change+0x6a/0xd0 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<f89a090a>] rfcomm_dev_state_change+0x6a/0xd0 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<f899c548>] __rfcomm_dlc_close+0x58/0xd0 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<f899d44f>] rfcomm_recv_ua+0x6f/0x120 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<f899e061>] rfcomm_recv_frame+0x171/0x1e0 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<c014abd9>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb9/0x130 [ 295.002046] [<c03d6e89>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x70 [ 295.002046] [<f899e357>] rfcomm_run+0xe7/0x550 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<c03d4559>] ? __sched_text_start+0x229/0x4c0 [ 295.002046] [<c0120000>] ? cpu_avg_load_per_task+0x20/0x30 [ 295.002046] [<f899e270>] ? rfcomm_run+0x0/0x550 [rfcomm] [ 295.002046] [<c013c18c>] kthread+0x5c/0xa0 [ 295.002046] [<c013c130>] ? kthread+0x0/0xa0 [ 295.002046] [<c0105c07>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10 [ 295.002046] ======================= Signed-off-by: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2008-04-01 23:59:06 -07:00
Bluetooth: Do not call rfcomm_session_put() for RFCOMM UA on closed socket When processing a RFCOMM UA frame when the socket is closed and we were not the RFCOMM initiator would cause rfcomm_session_put() to be called twice during rfcomm_process_rx(). This would cause a kernel panic in rfcomm_session_close() then. This could be easily reproduced during disconnect with devices such as Motorola H270 that send RFCOMM UA followed quickly by L2CAP disconnect request. This trace for this looks like: 2009-09-21 17:22:37.788895 < ACL data: handle 1 flags 0x02 dlen 8 L2CAP(d): cid 0x0041 len 4 [psm 3] RFCOMM(s): DISC: cr 0 dlci 20 pf 1 ilen 0 fcs 0x7d 2009-09-21 17:22:37.906204 > HCI Event: Number of Completed Packets (0x13) plen 5 handle 1 packets 1 2009-09-21 17:22:37.933090 > ACL data: handle 1 flags 0x02 dlen 8 L2CAP(d): cid 0x0040 len 4 [psm 3] RFCOMM(s): UA: cr 0 dlci 20 pf 1 ilen 0 fcs 0x57 2009-09-21 17:22:38.636764 < ACL data: handle 1 flags 0x02 dlen 8 L2CAP(d): cid 0x0041 len 4 [psm 3] RFCOMM(s): DISC: cr 0 dlci 0 pf 1 ilen 0 fcs 0x9c 2009-09-21 17:22:38.744125 > HCI Event: Number of Completed Packets (0x13) plen 5 handle 1 packets 1 2009-09-21 17:22:38.763687 > ACL data: handle 1 flags 0x02 dlen 8 L2CAP(d): cid 0x0040 len 4 [psm 3] RFCOMM(s): UA: cr 0 dlci 0 pf 1 ilen 0 fcs 0xb6 2009-09-21 17:22:38.783554 > ACL data: handle 1 flags 0x02 dlen 12 L2CAP(s): Disconn req: dcid 0x0040 scid 0x0041 Avoid calling rfcomm_session_put() twice by skipping this call in rfcomm_recv_ua() if the socket is closed. Signed-off-by: Nick Pelly <npelly@google.com> Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
2010-02-03 16:18:36 -08:00
Bluetooth: Add enhanced security model for Simple Pairing The current security model is based around the flags AUTH, ENCRYPT and SECURE. Starting with support for the Bluetooth 2.1 specification this is no longer sufficient. The different security levels are now defined as SDP, LOW, MEDIUM and SECURE. Previously it was possible to set each security independently, but this actually doesn't make a lot of sense. For Bluetooth the encryption depends on a previous successful authentication. Also you can only update your existing link key if you successfully created at least one before. And of course the update of link keys without having proper encryption in place is a security issue. The new security levels from the Bluetooth 2.1 specification are now used internally. All old settings are mapped to the new values and this way it ensures that old applications still work. The only limitation is that it is no longer possible to set authentication without also enabling encryption. No application should have done this anyway since this is actually a security issue. Without encryption the integrity of the authentication can't be guaranteed. As default for a new L2CAP or RFCOMM connection, the LOW security level is used. The only exception here are the service discovery sessions on PSM 1 where SDP level is used. To have similar security strength as with a Bluetooth 2.0 and before combination key, the MEDIUM level should be used. This is according to the Bluetooth specification. The MEDIUM level will not require any kind of man-in-the-middle (MITM) protection. Only the HIGH security level will require this. Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
2009-01-15 21:58:04 +01:00
Bluetooth: Add enhanced security model for Simple Pairing The current security model is based around the flags AUTH, ENCRYPT and SECURE. Starting with support for the Bluetooth 2.1 specification this is no longer sufficient. The different security levels are now defined as SDP, LOW, MEDIUM and SECURE. Previously it was possible to set each security independently, but this actually doesn't make a lot of sense. For Bluetooth the encryption depends on a previous successful authentication. Also you can only update your existing link key if you successfully created at least one before. And of course the update of link keys without having proper encryption in place is a security issue. The new security levels from the Bluetooth 2.1 specification are now used internally. All old settings are mapped to the new values and this way it ensures that old applications still work. The only limitation is that it is no longer possible to set authentication without also enabling encryption. No application should have done this anyway since this is actually a security issue. Without encryption the integrity of the authentication can't be guaranteed. As default for a new L2CAP or RFCOMM connection, the LOW security level is used. The only exception here are the service discovery sessions on PSM 1 where SDP level is used. To have similar security strength as with a Bluetooth 2.0 and before combination key, the MEDIUM level should be used. This is according to the Bluetooth specification. The MEDIUM level will not require any kind of man-in-the-middle (MITM) protection. Only the HIGH security level will require this. Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
2009-01-15 21:58:04 +01:00
Bluetooth: Add enhanced security model for Simple Pairing The current security model is based around the flags AUTH, ENCRYPT and SECURE. Starting with support for the Bluetooth 2.1 specification this is no longer sufficient. The different security levels are now defined as SDP, LOW, MEDIUM and SECURE. Previously it was possible to set each security independently, but this actually doesn't make a lot of sense. For Bluetooth the encryption depends on a previous successful authentication. Also you can only update your existing link key if you successfully created at least one before. And of course the update of link keys without having proper encryption in place is a security issue. The new security levels from the Bluetooth 2.1 specification are now used internally. All old settings are mapped to the new values and this way it ensures that old applications still work. The only limitation is that it is no longer possible to set authentication without also enabling encryption. No application should have done this anyway since this is actually a security issue. Without encryption the integrity of the authentication can't be guaranteed. As default for a new L2CAP or RFCOMM connection, the LOW security level is used. The only exception here are the service discovery sessions on PSM 1 where SDP level is used. To have similar security strength as with a Bluetooth 2.0 and before combination key, the MEDIUM level should be used. This is according to the Bluetooth specification. The MEDIUM level will not require any kind of man-in-the-middle (MITM) protection. Only the HIGH security level will require this. Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
2009-01-15 21:58:04 +01:00
Bluetooth: Fix sleeping function in RFCOMM within invalid context With the commit 9e726b17422bade75fba94e625cd35fd1353e682 the rfcomm_session_put() gets accidentially called from a timeout callback and results in this: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at net/core/sock.c:1897 in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 0, name: swapper Pid: 0, comm: swapper Tainted: P 2.6.32 #31 Call Trace: <IRQ> [<ffffffff81036455>] __might_sleep+0xf8/0xfa [<ffffffff8138ef1d>] lock_sock_nested+0x29/0xc4 [<ffffffffa03921b3>] lock_sock+0xb/0xd [l2cap] [<ffffffffa03948e6>] l2cap_sock_shutdown+0x1c/0x76 [l2cap] [<ffffffff8106adea>] ? clockevents_program_event+0x75/0x7e [<ffffffff8106bea2>] ? tick_dev_program_event+0x37/0xa5 [<ffffffffa0394967>] l2cap_sock_release+0x27/0x67 [l2cap] [<ffffffff8138c971>] sock_release+0x1a/0x67 [<ffffffffa03d2492>] rfcomm_session_del+0x34/0x53 [rfcomm] [<ffffffffa03d24c5>] rfcomm_session_put+0x14/0x16 [rfcomm] [<ffffffffa03d28b4>] rfcomm_session_timeout+0xe/0x1a [rfcomm] [<ffffffff810554a8>] run_timer_softirq+0x1e2/0x29a [<ffffffffa03d28a6>] ? rfcomm_session_timeout+0x0/0x1a [rfcomm] [<ffffffff8104e0f6>] __do_softirq+0xfe/0x1c5 [<ffffffff8100e8ce>] ? timer_interrupt+0x1a/0x21 [<ffffffff8100cc4c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x28 [<ffffffff8100e05b>] do_softirq+0x33/0x6b [<ffffffff8104daf6>] irq_exit+0x36/0x85 [<ffffffff8100d7a9>] do_IRQ+0xa6/0xbd [<ffffffff8100c493>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa <EOI> [<ffffffff812585b3>] ? acpi_idle_enter_bm+0x269/0x294 [<ffffffff812585a9>] ? acpi_idle_enter_bm+0x25f/0x294 [<ffffffff81373ddc>] ? cpuidle_idle_call+0x97/0x107 [<ffffffff8100aca0>] ? cpu_idle+0x53/0xaa [<ffffffff81429006>] ? rest_init+0x7a/0x7c [<ffffffff8177bc8c>] ? start_kernel+0x389/0x394 [<ffffffff8177b29c>] ? x86_64_start_reservations+0xac/0xb0 [<ffffffff8177b384>] ? x86_64_start_kernel+0xe4/0xeb To fix this, the rfcomm_session_put() needs to be moved out of rfcomm_session_timeout() into rfcomm_process_sessions(). In that context it is perfectly fine to sleep and disconnect the socket. Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org> Tested-by: David John <davidjon@xenontk.org>
2010-02-03 15:52:18 -08:00
Bluetooth: Add enhanced security model for Simple Pairing The current security model is based around the flags AUTH, ENCRYPT and SECURE. Starting with support for the Bluetooth 2.1 specification this is no longer sufficient. The different security levels are now defined as SDP, LOW, MEDIUM and SECURE. Previously it was possible to set each security independently, but this actually doesn't make a lot of sense. For Bluetooth the encryption depends on a previous successful authentication. Also you can only update your existing link key if you successfully created at least one before. And of course the update of link keys without having proper encryption in place is a security issue. The new security levels from the Bluetooth 2.1 specification are now used internally. All old settings are mapped to the new values and this way it ensures that old applications still work. The only limitation is that it is no longer possible to set authentication without also enabling encryption. No application should have done this anyway since this is actually a security issue. Without encryption the integrity of the authentication can't be guaranteed. As default for a new L2CAP or RFCOMM connection, the LOW security level is used. The only exception here are the service discovery sessions on PSM 1 where SDP level is used. To have similar security strength as with a Bluetooth 2.0 and before combination key, the MEDIUM level should be used. This is according to the Bluetooth specification. The MEDIUM level will not require any kind of man-in-the-middle (MITM) protection. Only the HIGH security level will require this. Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
2009-01-15 21:58:04 +01:00
Bluetooth: Add enhanced security model for Simple Pairing The current security model is based around the flags AUTH, ENCRYPT and SECURE. Starting with support for the Bluetooth 2.1 specification this is no longer sufficient. The different security levels are now defined as SDP, LOW, MEDIUM and SECURE. Previously it was possible to set each security independently, but this actually doesn't make a lot of sense. For Bluetooth the encryption depends on a previous successful authentication. Also you can only update your existing link key if you successfully created at least one before. And of course the update of link keys without having proper encryption in place is a security issue. The new security levels from the Bluetooth 2.1 specification are now used internally. All old settings are mapped to the new values and this way it ensures that old applications still work. The only limitation is that it is no longer possible to set authentication without also enabling encryption. No application should have done this anyway since this is actually a security issue. Without encryption the integrity of the authentication can't be guaranteed. As default for a new L2CAP or RFCOMM connection, the LOW security level is used. The only exception here are the service discovery sessions on PSM 1 where SDP level is used. To have similar security strength as with a Bluetooth 2.0 and before combination key, the MEDIUM level should be used. This is according to the Bluetooth specification. The MEDIUM level will not require any kind of man-in-the-middle (MITM) protection. Only the HIGH security level will require this. Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
2009-01-15 21:58:04 +01:00
Bluetooth: Add enhanced security model for Simple Pairing The current security model is based around the flags AUTH, ENCRYPT and SECURE. Starting with support for the Bluetooth 2.1 specification this is no longer sufficient. The different security levels are now defined as SDP, LOW, MEDIUM and SECURE. Previously it was possible to set each security independently, but this actually doesn't make a lot of sense. For Bluetooth the encryption depends on a previous successful authentication. Also you can only update your existing link key if you successfully created at least one before. And of course the update of link keys without having proper encryption in place is a security issue. The new security levels from the Bluetooth 2.1 specification are now used internally. All old settings are mapped to the new values and this way it ensures that old applications still work. The only limitation is that it is no longer possible to set authentication without also enabling encryption. No application should have done this anyway since this is actually a security issue. Without encryption the integrity of the authentication can't be guaranteed. As default for a new L2CAP or RFCOMM connection, the LOW security level is used. The only exception here are the service discovery sessions on PSM 1 where SDP level is used. To have similar security strength as with a Bluetooth 2.0 and before combination key, the MEDIUM level should be used. This is according to the Bluetooth specification. The MEDIUM level will not require any kind of man-in-the-middle (MITM) protection. Only the HIGH security level will require this. Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
2009-01-15 21:58:04 +01:00