linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] i2c: use an IRQ to report Host Notify events, not alert

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: <20161122114922.GA3993@katana>
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2016 12:49:22 +0100
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa-dev@...g-engineering.com>
To:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] i2c: use an IRQ to report Host Notify events, not
 alert

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:52:48AM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> Hi Wolfram,
> 
> On Nov 07 2016 or thereabouts, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:10:40PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > > The current SMBus Host Notify implementation relies on .alert() to
> > > relay its notifications. However, the use cases where SMBus Host
> > > Notify is needed currently is to signal data ready on touchpads.
> > > 
> > > This is closer to an IRQ than a custom API through .alert().
> > > Given that the 2 touchpad manufacturers (Synaptics and Elan) that
> > > use SMBus Host Notify don't put any data in the SMBus payload, the
> > > concept actually matches one to one.
> > 
> > I see the advantages. The only question I have: What if we encounter
> > devices in the future which do put data in the payload? Can this
> > mechanism be extended to handle that?
> 
> I guess I haven't convinced you with my answer. Is there anything I can
> do to get this series in v4.10 or do you prefer waiting for v4.11?

I consider this v4.10 material. I was thinking a little about how to not
lose data with consecutive interrupts but then -EBUSY came along.
Nonetheless, it looks to me like the proper path to follow...

Thanks,

   Wolfram


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)