linux-kernel - Re: [v2] HID: corsair-void: Add Corsair Void headset family driver

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: <CALTg27nu2_26WwFKc2hWbWY9B40QQLxJ_bM97OWY9VoRo-d_FA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 01:52:28 +0100
From: Stuart <stuart.a.hayhurst@...il.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: linux-input@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>, 
	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [v2] HID: corsair-void: Add Corsair Void headset family driver

> This was the case for a while.
>
> Increasing applications of scope-based resource management provide
> further opportunities for smaller scopes according to some local variables,
> don't they?

Personally I'd rather it just fits in with the rest of the kernel,
but if the general consensus is that new drivers should use tighter
scopes, I can do that instead.

> How do you think about to collaborate with other data structures
> than character arrays?
>
> See also:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?h=v6.11-rc4#n953

Hm, I picked a character array since all it's doing is sending a
buffer to the device.
There's no published specification to follow, only "Well the Windows
driver sends these bytes and this happens".
So there isn't really a structure that really comes naturally,
especially with all the magic numbers.

Unless you're suggesting I just do `unsigned char send_buf[3] = {...}`?
I checked the docs, apparently I misread somewhere that
`hid_hw_raw_request` couldn't use stack allocated memory safely,
whoops.

Thanks for the review,
Stuart