linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Input: gpio-keys - print button label in IRQ button error messages

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: <YWpkYWCFMtR40A6m@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 22:34:25 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc:     linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: gpio-keys - print button label in IRQ button
 error messages

Hi Geert,
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 09:18:02AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> When an error message related to IRQ buttons is printed, no clue is
> given about the actual button that caused the failure.  Fix this by
> including the button label, to make it more obvious which button has an
> incomplete or incorrect hardware description.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
> ---
>  drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys.c
> index 0f2250c6aa4978d5..fc706918d7b103cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys.c
> @@ -617,14 +617,16 @@ static int gpio_keys_setup_key(struct platform_device *pdev,
>  		}
>  	} else {
>  		if (!button->irq) {
> -			dev_err(dev, "Found button without gpio or irq\n");
> +			dev_err(dev, "Found button %s without gpio or irq\n",
> +				desc);

I do not believe description is mandatory, so we may end up printing
"gpio_keys" here. I wonder if it would not be more reliable to print the
index of the problematic key?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry