linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Bluetooth: btusb: Indicate Microsoft vendor extension for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260

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]

Date:   Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:09:50 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc:     Miao-chen Chou <mcchou@...omium.org>,
        Bluetooth Kernel Mailing List 
        <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@...el.com>,
        Alain Michaud <alainm@...omium.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Bluetooth: btusb: Indicate Microsoft vendor
 extension for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260

On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 19:48 +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Joe,

Hello Marcel.

> > > > This adds a bit mask of driver_info for Microsoft vendor extension and
> > > > indicates the support for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260. See
> > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/bluetooth/
> > > > microsoft-defined-bluetooth-hci-commands-and-events for more information
> > > > about the extension. This was verified with Intel ThunderPeak BT controller
> > > > where msft_vnd_ext_opcode is 0xFC1E.
> > []
> > > > diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> > []
> > > > @@ -315,6 +315,10 @@ struct hci_dev {
> > > > 	__u8		ssp_debug_mode;
> > > > 	__u8		hw_error_code;
> > > > 	__u32		clock;
> > > > +	__u16		msft_vnd_ext_opcode;
> > > > +	__u64		msft_vnd_ext_features;
> > > > +	__u8		msft_vnd_ext_evt_prefix_len;
> > > > +	void		*msft_vnd_ext_evt_prefix;
> > 
> > msft is just another vendor.
> > 
> > If there are to be vendor extensions, this should
> > likely use a blank line above and below and not
> > be prefixed with msft_
> 
> there are other vendors, but all of them are different. So this needs to be prefixed with msft_ actually. But I agree that having empty lines above and below makes it more readable.

So struct hci_dev should become a clutter
of random vendor extensions?

Perhaps there should instead be something like
an array of char at the end of the struct and
various vendor specific extensions could be
overlaid on that array or just add a void *
to whatever info that vendors require.