linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] dell-wmi: properly process Dell Instant Launch hotkey

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]

Date:	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:31:23 +0100
From:	Michał Kępień <kernel@...pniu.pl>
To:	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
Cc:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
	Darek Stojaczyk <darek.stojaczyk@...il.com>,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] dell-wmi: properly process Dell Instant Launch
 hotkey

> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-wmi.c
> > index 65edd93..ffc957b5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-wmi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-wmi.c
> > @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static const struct key_entry dell_wmi_legacy_keymap[] __initconst = {
> >  	{ KE_IGNORE, 0xe020, { KEY_MUTE } },
> >  
> >  	/* Shortcut and audio panel keys */
> > -	{ KE_IGNORE, 0xe025, { KEY_RESERVED } },
> > +	{ KE_KEY, 0xe025, { KEY_PROG4 } },
> >  	{ KE_IGNORE, 0xe026, { KEY_RESERVED } },
> >  
> >  	{ KE_IGNORE, 0xe02e, { KEY_VOLUMEDOWN } },
> > @@ -235,6 +235,9 @@ static void dell_wmi_process_key(int reported_key)
> >  	    acpi_video_handles_brightness_key_presses())
> >  		return;
> >  
> > +	if (key->keycode == KEY_PROG4 && !wmi_requires_smbios_request)
> > +		return;
> > +
> 
> Here I would rather test against reported_key, not keycode. If somebody
> in future adds KEY_PROG4 for something else we will have problem...

As 0xe025 is currently the only event we know about that should be
ignored on some machines and processed on others, this makes sense, at
least for now.  If I change the first condition to:

    reported_key == 0xe025

will you be okay with adding your Reviewed-by for this patch?  Then, for
Darren's convenience, I could post a v5 of the whole series with the
above change and all your Acked-by and Reviewed-by tags added.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Kępień