linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] HID: semitek: new driver for GK6X series keyboards

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 5 May 2021 14:21:38 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To:     Benjamin Moody <benjamin.moody@...il.com>
cc:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
        linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Benjamin Moody <bmoody@...ber.fsf.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: semitek: new driver for GK6X series keyboards

On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Benjamin Moody wrote:

> From: Benjamin Moody <bmoody@...ber.fsf.org>
> 
> A number of USB keyboards, using the Semitek firmware, are capable of
> handling arbitrary N-key rollover, but due to a buggy report
> descriptor, keys beyond the sixth cannot be detected by the generic
> HID driver.
> 
> There are numerous hardware variants sold by several vendors, mostly
> using generic names like "GK61" for the 61-key version.  These
> keyboards are sometimes known collectively as the "GK6X" series.
> 
> The keyboard has three USB interfaces.  Interface 0 uses the standard
> HID boot protocol, limited to eight modifier keys and six normal keys;
> interface 2 uses a custom report format that permits any number of
> keys.  If more than six keys are pressed simultaneously, the first six
> are reported via interface 0 while subsequent keys are reported via
> interface 2.
> 
> (Interface 1 uses a custom protocol for reprogramming the keyboard;
> this can be controlled through userspace tools and is not of concern
> for the present driver.)
> 
> The report descriptor for interface 2, however, is incorrect (for
> report ID 0x04, the input field is marked as "array" rather than
> "variable".)  The descriptor appears to be correct in other respects,
> so we simply replace the incorrect byte before parsing the descriptor.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Moody <bmoody@...ber.fsf.org>

Applied, thanks.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs