linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] HID: quirks: Refactor ELAN 400 and 401 handling

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: <20190612214636.GA40779@dtor-ws>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:46:36 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@...il.com>
Cc:     benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com, jikos@...nel.org,
        hdegoede@...hat.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, agross@...nel.org,
        lee.jones@...aro.org, xnox@...ntu.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] HID: quirks: Refactor ELAN 400 and 401 handling

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 02:27:21PM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> There needs to be coordination between hid-quirks and the elan_i2c driver
> about which devices are handled by what drivers.  Currently, both use
> whitelists, which results in valid devices being unhandled by default,
> when they should not be rejected by hid-quirks.  This is quickly becoming
> an issue.
> 
> Since elan_i2c has a maintained whitelist of what devices it will handle,
> which is now in a header file that hid-quirks can access, use that to
> implement a blacklist in hid-quirks so that only the devices that need to
> be handled by elan_i2c get rejected by hid-quirks, and everything else is
> handled by default.
> 
> Suggested-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c b/drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c
> index e5ca6fe2ca57..bd81bb090222 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>  #include <linux/export.h>
>  #include <linux/slab.h>
>  #include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/input/elan-i2c-ids.h>
>  
>  #include "hid-ids.h"
>  
> @@ -914,6 +915,8 @@ static const struct hid_device_id hid_mouse_ignore_list[] = {
>  
>  bool hid_ignore(struct hid_device *hdev)
>  {
> +	int i;
> +
>  	if (hdev->quirks & HID_QUIRK_NO_IGNORE)
>  		return false;
>  	if (hdev->quirks & HID_QUIRK_IGNORE)
> @@ -978,18 +981,20 @@ bool hid_ignore(struct hid_device *hdev)
>  		break;
>  	case USB_VENDOR_ID_ELAN:
>  		/*
> -		 * Many Elan devices have a product id of 0x0401 and are handled
> -		 * by the elan_i2c input driver. But the ACPI HID ELAN0800 dev
> -		 * is not (and cannot be) handled by that driver ->
> -		 * Ignore all 0x0401 devs except for the ELAN0800 dev.
> +		 * Blacklist of everything that gets handled by the elan_i2c
> +		 * input driver.  This avoids disabling valid touchpads and
> +		 * other ELAN devices.
>  		 */
> -		if (hdev->product == 0x0401 &&
> -		    strncmp(hdev->name, "ELAN0800", 8) != 0)
> -			return true;
> -		/* Same with product id 0x0400 */
> -		if (hdev->product == 0x0400 &&
> -		    strncmp(hdev->name, "QTEC0001", 8) != 0)
> -			return true;
> +		if ((hdev->product == 0x0401 || hdev->product == 0x0400)) {
> +			for (i = 0; strlen(elan_acpi_id[i].id); ++i)
> +				if (!strncmp(hdev->name, elan_acpi_id[i].id,
> +					     strlen(elan_acpi_id[i].id)))
> +					return true;
> +			for (i = 0; strlen(elan_of_match[i].name); ++i)
> +				if (!strncmp(hdev->name, elan_of_match[i].name,
> +					     strlen(elan_of_match[i].name)))
> +					return true;

Do we really need to blacklist the OF case here? I thought that in ACPI
case we have clashes as HID gets matched by elan_i2c and CID is matched
by i2c-hid, but I do not believe we'll run into the same situation on OF
systems.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry