linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] HID: clamp input to logical range if no null state

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: <20170312143247.GA938@gaia.local>
Date:   Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:32:47 +0000
From:   Tomasz Kramkowski <tk@...-tk.com>
To:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] HID: clamp input to logical range if no null state

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:16:06AM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> We have a "clamp()" function in the kernel that does the job directly
> and which is more readable. Also, this makes testing the out of range
> values twice.
> 
> How about:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-input.c b/drivers/hid/hid-input.c
> index cf8256a..781f400 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-input.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-input.c
> @@ -1150,19 +1150,26 @@ void hidinput_hid_event(struct hid_device *hid, struct hid_field *field, struct
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Ignore out-of-range values as per HID specification,
> -	 * section 5.10 and 6.2.25.
> +	 * section 5.10 and 6.2.25, when NULL state bit is present.
> +	 * When it's not, clamp the value to match Microsoft's input
> +	 * driver as mentioned in "Required HID usages for digitizers":
> +	 * https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/dn672278(v=vs.85).asp
>  	 *
>  	 * The logical_minimum < logical_maximum check is done so that we
>  	 * don't unintentionally discard values sent by devices which
>  	 * don't specify logical min and max.
>  	 */
>  	if ((field->flags & HID_MAIN_ITEM_VARIABLE) &&
> -	    (field->flags & HID_MAIN_ITEM_NULL_STATE) &&
> -	    (field->logical_minimum < field->logical_maximum) &&
> -	    (value < field->logical_minimum ||
> -	     value > field->logical_maximum)) {
> -		dbg_hid("Ignoring out-of-range value %x\n", value);
> -		return;
> +	    (field->logical_minimum < field->logical_maximum)) {
>  	}

Yes, I don't mind the expansion of the comment and the usage of clamp (I
didn't know this existed, but I will use it in the future). However if
there is anything I would change, it would be this:

---
 drivers/hid/hid-input.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-input.c b/drivers/hid/hid-input.c
index cf8256aac2bd..a1ebdd7d4d4d 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/hid-input.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/hid-input.c
@@ -1150,19 +1150,26 @@ void hidinput_hid_event(struct hid_device *hid, struct hid_field *field, struct
 
 	/*
 	 * Ignore out-of-range values as per HID specification,
-	 * section 5.10 and 6.2.25.
+	 * section 5.10 and 6.2.25, when NULL state bit is present.
+	 * When it's not, clamp the value to match Microsoft's input
+	 * driver as mentioned in "Required HID usages for digitizers":
+	 * https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/dn672278(v=vs.85).asp
 	 *
 	 * The logical_minimum < logical_maximum check is done so that we
 	 * don't unintentionally discard values sent by devices which
 	 * don't specify logical min and max.
 	 */
 	if ((field->flags & HID_MAIN_ITEM_VARIABLE) &&
-	    (field->flags & HID_MAIN_ITEM_NULL_STATE) &&
-	    (field->logical_minimum < field->logical_maximum) &&
-	    (value < field->logical_minimum ||
-	     value > field->logical_maximum)) {
-		dbg_hid("Ignoring out-of-range value %x\n", value);
-		return;
+	    (field->logical_minimum < field->logical_maximum)) {
+		if (field->flags & HID_MAIN_ITEM_NULL_STATE &&
+		    (value < field->logical_minimum ||
+		     value > field->logical_maximum)) {
+			dbg_hid("Ignoring out-of-range value %x\n", value);
+			return;
+		}
+		value = clamp(value,
+			      field->logical_minimum,
+			      field->logical_maximum);
 	}
 
 	/*
-- 
2.12.0

For me it is a bit clearer on what is happening and still avoids doing
the range check twice. But ultimately it is all up to you guys.

I can get both versions of this patch tested at some point in the next
few days and re-submit whichever one you prefer as a v2.

I'm not sure what the procedures are on this, should I put a
"Suggested-by:" for your suggested change to my patch, or is that not
applicable here?

As always, thanks for your time.

-- 
Tomasz Kramkowski | GPG: 40B037BA0A5B8680 | Web: https://the-tk.com/