linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system?

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: <20091207182438.GB998@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date:	Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:24:38 -0800
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Emmanuel Fusté <emmanuel.fuste@...lesgroup.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel
	IR system?

On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 06:54:39PM +0100, Emmanuel Fusté wrote:
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>
>> In summary,
>>
>> While the current EVIO[G|S]KEYCODE works sub-optimally for scancodes up 
>> to 16 bytes
>> (since a read loop for 2^16 is not that expensive), the current approach
>> won't scale with bigger scancode spaces. So, it is needed expand it
>> to work with bigger scancode spaces, used by more recent IR protocols.
>>
>> I'm afraid that any tricks we may try to go around the current limits to still
>> keep using the same ioctl definition will sooner or later cause big headaches.
>> The better is to redesign it to allow using different scancode spaces.
>>
>>
>>   
> I second you: input layer events from drivers should be augmented with a
> protocol member, allowing us to define new ioctl and new ways to
> efficiently store and manage sparse scancode spaces (tree, hashtable
> ....).

Userspace has no business knowing how driver maps hardware data stream
into a keycode, only what is being mapped to what. The way is is done
can change from driver-to-driver, from release to release. If I come up
with an super-smart or super-stupid way of storing key mapping I won't
want to modify userpsace tools to support it.

> It will allow us to abstract the scancode value and to use
> variable length scancode depending on the used protocol, and using the
> most appropriate scheme to store the scancode/keycode mapping per protocol.
> The today scancode space will be the legacy one, the default if not
> specified "protocol". It will permit to progressively clean up the
> actual acceptable mess in the input layer and finally using real
> scancode -> keycode mappings everywhere if it is cleaner/convenient.
>

I am unable to parse this part, sorry.

-- 
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/