linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: Define constants for FUNC operations

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: <20180310201033.GA1173@kmp-mobile.hq.kempniu.pl>
Date:   Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:10:33 +0100
From:   Michał Kępień <kernel@...pniu.pl>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@...t42.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: Define constants for
 FUNC operations

> > #define OP_GET_CAPS     0x0
> > #define OP_GET_EVENTS   0x1
> > #define OP_SET          0x1
> > #define OP_GET          0x2
> > #define OP_GET_EXT      0x4
> > #define OP_SET_EXT      0x5
> 
> This one looks pretty much okay (logical pairs IIUC).

Sadly, no, these are not logical pairs.  But maybe this is a reasonable
compromise anyway:

  - OP_GET_CAPS seems to be consistent between different functions; it
    is an operation which returns a bitfield describing given model's
    "capabilities" in a certain area (LEDs, buttons, etc.),

  - some functions expose only OP_GET_CAPS, OP_SET, and OP_GET,

  - some functions expose only OP_GET_CAPS and OP_GET_EVENTS,

  - some function expose OP_GET_CAPS, OP_GET_EVENTS, OP_GET_EXT and
    OP_SET_EXT (but not OP_SET or OP_GET, probably because 0x1 is
    already "taken" by OP_GET_EVENTS).

So, given the above, does this layout look reasonable to you (at least
somewhat) or would you rather see these constants shuffled around in
some other way?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Kępień