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 15:00:52 -0800
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:	Michał Kępień <kernel@...pniu.pl>
Cc:	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.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

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:31:23PM +0100, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > > 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.

Yes, please do. That way I'm sure I have the right bits.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center