[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <08CA35F5-1ADC-4C55-ACF5-04B19CC77A25@canonical.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 02:29:11 +0800
From: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
"open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ronald Tschalär <ronald@...ovation.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: Increase maximum report size allowed by
hid_field_extract()
at 17:42, Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:11 AM Kai-Heng Feng
> <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com> wrote:
>> Commit 71f6fa90a353 ("HID: increase maximum global item tag report size
>> to 256") increases the max report size from 128 to 256.
>>
>> We also need to update the report size in hid_field_extract() otherwise
>> it complains and truncates now valid report size:
>> [ 406.165461] hid-sensor-hub 001F:8086:22D8.0002: hid_field_extract()
>> called with n (192) > 32! (kworker/5:1)
>>
>> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1818547
>> Fixes: 71f6fa90a353 ("HID: increase maximum global item tag report size
>> to 256")
>> Signed-off-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/hid/hid-core.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-core.c b/drivers/hid/hid-core.c
>> index 9993b692598f..860e21ec6a49 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-core.c
>> @@ -1301,10 +1301,10 @@ static u32 __extract(u8 *report, unsigned
>> offset, int n)
>> u32 hid_field_extract(const struct hid_device *hid, u8 *report,
>> unsigned offset, unsigned n)
>
> Ronald (Cc-ed) raised quite a good point:
> what's the benefit of removing the error message if this function (and
> __extract) can only report an unsigned 32 bits value?
I didn’t spot this, sorry.
>
> My take is we should revert 94a9992f7dbdfb28976b upstream and think at
> a better solution.
I think using a new fix to replace it will be a better approach, as it at
least partially solves the issue.
Kai-Heng
>
> Cheers,
> Benjamin
>
>> {
>> - if (n > 32) {
>> - hid_warn(hid, "hid_field_extract() called with n (%d) >
>> 32! (%s)\n",
>> + if (n > 256) {
>> + hid_warn(hid, "hid_field_extract() called with n (%d) >
>> 256! (%s)\n",
>> n, current->comm);
>> - n = 32;
>> + n = 256;
>> }
>>
>> return __extract(report, offset, n);
>> —
>> 2.17.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists