| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:42:11 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, corentincj@...aif.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org Subject: Awkward rfkill corner cases On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:32:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Then, I have no futher comments. Looks good to me. Excellent, glad I've got that right. One completely unrelated question. In the following situation (relevant to Dells, not the Eee) * The system has a key (not a switch) that in firmware disables the hardware (HARD_BLOCKED) * That key generates an event through the keyboard controller, but not through any other obviously detectable means * The radio control is also controllable through software (SOFT_BLOCKED) Should pressing the key generate a KEY_WLAN event? I note that rfkill-input will, if the device is in HARD_BLOCKED state, attempt to set it to UNBLOCKED. This sounds like generating the keycode is the wrong thing to do, since it'll cause rfkill-input to try to undo the change that's just been made. However, if the key isn't mapped there's no obvious way for any of the stack to determine that a change has been made and propagate that to userspace. What should we be doing here? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists