linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] Input updates for 2.6.34-rc6

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 27 May 2010 22:05:52 -0600
From:	Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>
Subject: Re: [git pull] Input updates for 2.6.34-rc6

On 05/27/2010 07:03 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On May 27, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Robert Hancock wrote:
>>>
>>> It's highly unlikely that they are incomplete in this respect, as
>>> since I mentioned, Windows would fail to recognize the PS/2 controller
>>> that people would expect to work, which would most likely get
>>> noticed..
>>
>> Did you miss the part where I actually quoted my own modern Core i5
>> machine that _does_ have a keyboard controller, and _does_ have a
>> keyboard
>> port, and that does _not_ mention them in the PnP tables?
>
> Except that it _does_. But _our_ ACPI implementation drops all inactive
> devices so our PNP layer does not see your mouse and keyboard ports.

That's likely true - my machine works similarly, it doesn't list any 
keyboard or mouse controller in PnP and Windows doesn't see them if no 
device is plugged in at boot. The PnP devices for them are still 
defined, but they are marked as disabled (the _STA method in the DSDT 
returns 0). So we could likely detect that case and say "hey, the device 
is there, just turned off, maybe we should try and see if it works 
anyway". Whereas if the device is not there at all, we'd likely be 
better off leaving it alone, by default anyway.

>
>
>>
>>> I think this is a case where it has to be trusted, because that's what
>>> Windows does.
>>
>> The thing is, Windows isn't used for things like headless machines. Which
>> we went over extensively in the thread. There's a _reason_ why Linux
>> probes the dang thing.
>
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/