linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] Input: elantech

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: <87ty9f2mfl.fsf@emc.com.tw>
Date:	Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:44:46 +0800
From:	JJ Ding <jj_ding@....com.tw>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com, Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
	Aaron Huang <aaron_huang@....com.tw>,
	Tom Lin <tom_lin@....com.tw>,
	Eric Piel <E.A.B.Piel@...elft.nl>,
	Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>,
	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>,
	Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...l.unipv.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Input: elantech - clean up elantech_init

Hi Dmitry,

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 23:00:38 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 01:35:55PM +0800, JJ Ding wrote:
> > Hi Wanlong Gao, Daniel,
> > 
> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:08:08 +0800, Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > On 08/18/2011 11:04 AM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Assuming paritycheck goes away:
> > > Agree.
> > I thought about removing it, too. But it occured to me that v1 and v2
> > hardware can still have the sysfs entry to turn off parity check.
> > 
> > And since it's exposed in sysfs, I suppose there might be some init
> > scripts relying on it.
> > 
> > What do you think, Dmitry?
> > Shall I remove it?
> 
> No, we should not remove it, since it is useful for V1 hardware which we
> still support.
> 
> How confident are we in the V2/V3 checking not tripping on valid packets?
> 
> Thanks.
With V2 it should work reasonbaly well. Although I don't have test data,
I didn't encounter any problem turning paritycheck off when testing V2.

With V3 we use the check to distinguish first 2-finger packet and the
second one. So it's mandatory with V3.

Thanks
jj
> -- 
> Dmitry
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/