linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Bluetooth: hidp: Add support for hidraw HIDIOCGFEATURE and HIDIOCSFEATURE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4C372CEE.3070109@signal11.us>
Date:	Fri, 09 Jul 2010 10:06:38 -0400
From:	Alan Ott <alan@...nal11.us>
To:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc:	David S Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Michael Poole <mdpoole@...ilus.org>,
	Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Bluetooth: hidp: Add support for hidraw    HIDIOCGFEATURE    and HIDIOCSFEATURE

On 07/09/2010 09:06 AM, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>>>>> I looked at this and I am bit worried that this should not be done in
>>>>> this detail in the HIDP driver. Essentially HIDP is a pure transport
>>>>> driver. It should not handle all these details. Can we make this a bit
>>>>> easier for the transport drivers to support such features?
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> I put these changes (most notably the addition of hidp_get_raw_report())
>>>> in hidp because that's where the parallel function
>>>> hidp_output_raw_report() was already located. I figured the input should
>>>> go with the output. That said, if there's a better place for both of
>>>> them (input and output) to go, let me know where you think it should be,
>>>> and I'll get them moved into the proper spot.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what you mean about HIDP being a pure transport driver.
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> what is usb-hid.ko doing here? I would expect a bunch of code
>>> duplication with minor difference between USB and Bluetooth.
>>>        
>> usbhid doesn't have a lot of code for hidraw. Two functions are involved:
>>       usbhid_output_raw_report()
>>           - calls usb_control_msg() with Get_Report
>>       usbhid_get_raw_report()
>>           - calls usb_control_msg() with Set_Report
>>               OR
>>           - calls usb_interrupt_msg() on the Ouput pipe.
>>
>> This is of course easier than bluetooth because usb_control_msg() is
>> synchronous, even when requesting reports, mostly because of the nature
>> of USB, where the request and response are part of the same transfer.
>>
>> For Bluetooth, it's a bit more complicated since the kernel treats it
>> more like a networking interface (and indeed it is). My understanding is
>> that to make a synchronous transfer in bluetooth, one must:
>>       - send the request packet
>>       - block (wait_event_*())
>>       - when the response is received in the input handler, wake_up_*().
>>
>> There's not really any code duplication, mostly because initiating
>> synchronous USB transfers (input and output) is easy (because of the
>> usb_*_msg() functions), while making synchronous Bluetooth transfers
>> must be done manually. If there's a nice, convenient, synchronous
>> function in Bluetooth similar to usb_control_msg() that I've missed,
>> then let me know, as it would simplify this whole thing.
>>      
> there is not and I don't think we ever get one. My question here was
> more in the direction why HID core is doing these synchronously in the
> first place. Especially since USB can do everything async as well.
>
> Regards
>
> Marcel
>    

Hi Marcel,

I'm open to suggestions. The way I see it is from a user space 
perspective. With Get_Feature being on an ioctl(), I don't see any clean 
way to do it other than synchronously. Other operating systems (I can 
say for sure Windows, Mac OS X, and FreeBSD) handle Get/Set Feature the 
same way (synchronously) from user space.

You seem to be proposing an asynchronous interface. What would that look 
like from user space?

Alan.







--
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/