linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] hid: Enable report fixup on rebind

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:	Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:33:23 +0300
From:	Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
CC:	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] hid: Enable report fixup on rebind

On 04/23/2012 12:27 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
>
>> This patchset contains a resolution to the problem with
>> driver-specific modification of the report descriptor. The core of the
>> problem lies with the dual semantics of hid_parse_report(), which is
>> therefore split into two functions. As a consequence, the hid core can
>> handle the rebind case internally, with no changes to the
>> drivers. Out-of-tree drivers will work fine as long as they operate in
>> the same way as the in-kernel drivers.
>>
>> The first two patches are bug fixes found in the process. I am hoping
>> for some test feedback on those. The third patch is the main one.

I've tested the last patch and it seems to work as required. I did a series
of generic<->specific driver rebindings both ways in a loop and it works.

So,
Tested-by: Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@...il.com>

Thanks Henrik!

I'm not sure, though, if one thing works as it should: the quirks are not
reset when changing the driver. So, quirks set by one driver may affect
behavior of another. I don't understand full quirks usage and ownership yet,
so can't argue if this is right or wrong.

Regarding the code, could it be the time to fix naming of report
descriptor-handling functions to improve distinction from report-handling
ones? I'm attaching a patch applying on top of Henrik's changes which should
illustrate the proposal.

Thanks!

Sincerely,
Nick

View attachment "0001-hid-Differentiate-report-descriptors-and-reports.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (26162 bytes)