linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] HID: usbhid: enable remote wakeup for mice

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <MN0PR12MB6101893BED7C03E079F190CBE2AC9@MN0PR12MB6101.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Feb 2023 19:07:23 +0000
From:   "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@....com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
        Michael Wu <michael@...winnertech.com>,
        "jikos@...nel.org" <jikos@...nel.org>,
        "benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com" <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
        "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Gong, Richard" <Richard.Gong@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] HID: usbhid: enable remote wakeup for mice

[AMD Official Use Only - General]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 13:05
> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@....com>
> Cc: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>; Michael Wu
> <michael@...winnertech.com>; jikos@...nel.org;
> benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com; linux-usb@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> input@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Gong, Richard
> <Richard.Gong@....com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: usbhid: enable remote wakeup for mice
> 
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 06:50:18PM +0000, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> > I still keep getting inquiries about this where teams that work on the same
> > hardware for Windows and Linux complain about this difference during
> > their testing.
> >
> > I keep educating them to change it in sysfs (or to use a udev rule), but
> > you have to question if you keep getting something asked about policy
> > over and over if it's actually the right policy.
> 
> Why not complain to the Windows team to get them to change their policy
> back as they are the ones that changed it over time and are not
> backwards-compatible with older systems?
> 

Heh.

I don't think that's actually true though - Modern Standby is relatively new.
Picking new policies tied to that shouldn't break backwards compatibility.