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: <2d1e21cc9677a5cfe828decd8cbd5e930237e76d.camel@posteo.de>
Date:   Sat, 30 Sep 2023 09:26:34 +0000
From:   Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
To:     Jamie Lentin <jm@...tin.co.uk>
Cc:     jikos@...nel.org, benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] hid: lenovo: move type checks to
 lenovo_features_set_cptkbd()

Am Donnerstag, dem 28.09.2023 um 22:06 +0100 schrieb Jamie Lentin:
> On 2023-09-27 12:20, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, dem 27.09.2023 um 09:19 +0100 schrieb Jamie Lentin:
> > > On 2023-09-25 11:23, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
> > > > These custom commands will be sent to both the USB keyboard &
> > > > mouse
> > > > devices but only the mouse will respond. Avoid sending known-
> > > > useless
> > > > messages by always prepending the filter before sending them.
> > > > 
> > > > Suggested-by: Jamie Lentin <jm@...tin.co.uk>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/hid/hid-lenovo.c | 27 +++++++++------------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-lenovo.c b/drivers/hid/hid-
> > > > lenovo.c
> > > > index 29aa6d372bad..922f3e5462f4 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-lenovo.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-lenovo.c
> > > > @@ -521,6 +521,14 @@ static void
> > > > lenovo_features_set_cptkbd(struct
> > > > hid_device *hdev)
> > > >         int ret;
> > > >         struct lenovo_drvdata *cptkbd_data =
> > > > hid_get_drvdata(hdev);
> > > > 
> > > > +       /* All the custom action happens on the USBMOUSE device
> > > > for
> > > > USB */
> > > > +       if (((hdev->product == USB_DEVICE_ID_LENOVO_CUSBKBD) ||
> > > > +           (hdev->product == USB_DEVICE_ID_LENOVO_TPIIUSBKBD))
> > > > &&
> > > > +           hdev->type != HID_TYPE_USBMOUSE) {
> > > > +               hid_dbg(hdev, "Ignoring keyboard half of
> > > > device\n");
> > > > +               return;
> > > > +       }
> > > > +
> > > >         /*
> > > >          * Tell the keyboard a driver understands it, and turn
> > > > F7,
> > > > F9, F11
> > > > into
> > > >          * regular keys
> > > > @@ -1122,14 +1130,6 @@ static int lenovo_probe_cptkbd(struct
> > > > hid_device
> > > > *hdev)
> > > >         int ret;
> > > >         struct lenovo_drvdata *cptkbd_data;
> > > > 
> > > > -       /* All the custom action happens on the USBMOUSE device
> > > > for
> > > > USB */
> > > > -       if (((hdev->product == USB_DEVICE_ID_LENOVO_CUSBKBD) ||
> > > > -           (hdev->product == USB_DEVICE_ID_LENOVO_TPIIUSBKBD))
> > > > &&
> > > > -           hdev->type != HID_TYPE_USBMOUSE) {
> > > > -               hid_dbg(hdev, "Ignoring keyboard half of
> > > > device\n");
> > > > -               return 0;
> > > > -       }
> > > > -
> > > 
> > > I like the idea of doing it once then forgetting about it, but
> > > removing
> > > this will mean that the "keyboard half" will have it's own set of
> > > non-functional sysfs parameters I think? Currently:-
> > > 
> > > # evtest
> > >    . . .
> > > /dev/input/event10:     ThinkPad Compact Bluetooth Keyboard with
> > > TrackPoint
> > > /dev/input/event11:     Lenovo ThinkPad Compact USB Keyboard with
> > > TrackPoint
> > > /dev/input/event12:     Lenovo ThinkPad Compact USB Keyboard with
> > > TrackPoint
> > > 
> > > # ls -1 /sys/class/input/event*/device/device/fn_lock
> > > /sys/class/input/event10/device/device/fn_lock
> > > /sys/class/input/event12/device/device/fn_lock
> > > 
> > > (note 11 is missing.)
> > > 
> > > I think the easiest (but ugly) thing to do is to copy-paste this
> > > lump
> > > of
> > > code to the top of lenovo_reset_resume.
> > > Cheers,
> > > 
> > > >         cptkbd_data = devm_kzalloc(&hdev->dev,
> > > >                                         sizeof(*cptkbd_data),
> > > >                                         GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > @@ -1264,16 +1264,7 @@ static int lenovo_probe(struct
> > > > hid_device
> > > > *hdev,
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> > > >  static int lenovo_reset_resume(struct hid_device *hdev)
> > > >  {
> > > > -       switch (hdev->product) {
> > > > -       case USB_DEVICE_ID_LENOVO_CUSBKBD:
> > > > -               if (hdev->type == HID_TYPE_USBMOUSE) {
> > > > -                       lenovo_features_set_cptkbd(hdev);
> > > > -               }
> > > > -
> > > > -               break;
> > > > -       default:
> > > > -               break;
> > > > -       }
> > > > +       lenovo_features_set_cptkbd(hdev);
> > 
> > ok. ignore my change (this whole patch) and look at your addition
> > here,
> > don't you already make sure only the mouse-part gets the messages?
> > you
> > just write switch()case instead of if(); what do you think is
> > missing
> > here?
> 
> Correct, this switch statement() that you're removing in this patch 
> already does exactly this, so replacing it with the 
> if()-and-return-early block would result in equivalent code (ignoring
> the Trackpoint keyboard II). That suggestion wasn't the most helpful
> of 
> mine, sorry!
> 
> The reason I originally used a switch here is for symmetry with 
> lenovo_probe(), lenovo_remove(), etc. It might some day be useful to
> add 
> something like:
> 
>         case USB_DEVICE_ID_LENOVO_X1_TAB:
>                 lenovo_reset_resume_tp10ubkbd(hdev);
>                 break;
> 
> ...to the switch. For completeness, lenovo_reset_resume() should 
> probably call a separate lenovo_reset_resume_cptkbd() that does the 
> work. For just 3 lines of code it didn't seem worth it at the time 
> though.
> 
> Cheers,

ok your original patch seems to basically be a valid first fix. Should
I send it on your behalf (with you as author) or do you want to send it
yourself? Let's get this fixed :)

thanks,
                       martin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ