linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Map volume and brightness events on thinkpads

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]

Message-ID: <d120d5000710161312r5676cad8o60e0790a4e8d5256@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:12:41 -0400
From:	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	"Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <hmh@....eng.br>,
	"Jeremy Katz" <katzj@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	davej@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Map volume and brightness events on thinkpads

On 10/16/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > >
> > > It still doesn't mean it belongs inside the stream of data for the keyboard,
> > > maskerading as a key press.
> >
> > But it *is* a key press!
>
> To get somewhat back on track: volume and brightness (and similar - lid
> close etc) events clearly are keypresses.
>
> However, I would also argue that a keypress that is acted on by the
> firmware automatically is *different* from a keypress that hasn't been
> acted on: one is a "key was pressed *and* hardware did something
> automatically", and the other is just a "key was pressed" event.
>
> IOW, I think the thinkpad issue (and others like it) should be fixed by
> splitting up the KEY_VOLUMEUP "key" into separate KEY_VOLUMEUP and
> KEY_VOLUMEUP_NOTIFY key events, so that downstream user mode (and the
> kernel itself, for that matter) can know whether it's a informational
> message or whether it should be acted upon.

I agree that these are 2 different events. My argument is that
"VOLUME_UP_NOTIFY" event is similar to "BATTERY_OUT_NOTIFY",
"DOCK_UNDOCK_NOTIFY", etc, etc and should be sent not through input
layer but through a generic (yet to be designed) notification
mechanism. Something lighter than input. Something like uevents over
netlink.


-- 
Dmitry
-
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/