linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 04/11] HID: asus: fortify keyboard handshake

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: <04075ef3-3fba-c308-871f-619972ffe5ff@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 18:41:14 +0200 (EET)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@...heas.dev>
cc: Denis Benato <benato.denis96@...il.com>, 
    platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org, 
    LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, 
    Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>, 
    Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>, 
    "Luke D . Jones" <luke@...nes.dev>, Hans de Goede <hansg@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 04/11] HID: asus: fortify keyboard handshake

On Thu, 20 Nov 2025, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 at 15:15, Denis Benato <benato.denis96@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11/20/25 10:46, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote:
> > > Handshaking with an Asus device involves sending it a feature report
> > > with the string "ASUS Tech.Inc." and then reading it back to verify the
> > > handshake was successful, under the feature ID the interaction will
> > > take place.
> > >
> > > Currently, the driver only does the first part. Add the readback to
> > > verify the handshake was successful. As this could cause breakages,
> > > allow the verification to fail with a dmesg error until we verify
> > > all devices work with it (they seem to).
> > >
> > > Since the response is more than 16 bytes, increase the buffer size
> > > to 64 as well to avoid overflow errors.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@...heas.dev>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/hid/hid-asus.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > >  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-asus.c b/drivers/hid/hid-asus.c
> > > index 6de402d215d0..5149dc7edfc5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-asus.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-asus.c
> > > @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Asus HID Keyboard and TouchPad");
> > >  #define FEATURE_REPORT_ID 0x0d
> > >  #define INPUT_REPORT_ID 0x5d
> > >  #define FEATURE_KBD_REPORT_ID 0x5a
> > > -#define FEATURE_KBD_REPORT_SIZE 16
> > > +#define FEATURE_KBD_REPORT_SIZE 64
> > >  #define FEATURE_KBD_LED_REPORT_ID1 0x5d
> > >  #define FEATURE_KBD_LED_REPORT_ID2 0x5e
> > >
> > > @@ -394,14 +394,40 @@ static int asus_kbd_set_report(struct hid_device *hdev, const u8 *buf, size_t bu
> > >
> > >  static int asus_kbd_init(struct hid_device *hdev, u8 report_id)
> > >  {
> > > +     /*
> > > +      * The handshake is first sent as a set_report, then retrieved
> > > +      * from a get_report. They should be equal.
> > > +      */
> > >       const u8 buf[] = { report_id, 0x41, 0x53, 0x55, 0x53, 0x20, 0x54,
> > >                    0x65, 0x63, 0x68, 0x2e, 0x49, 0x6e, 0x63, 0x2e, 0x00 };
> > > +     u8 *readbuf;
> > >       int ret;
> > >
> > >       ret = asus_kbd_set_report(hdev, buf, sizeof(buf));
> > > -     if (ret < 0)
> > > -             hid_err(hdev, "Asus failed to send init command: %d\n", ret);
> > > +     if (ret < 0) {
> > > +             hid_err(hdev, "Asus failed to send handshake: %d\n", ret);
> > > +             return ret;
> > > +     }
> > > +
> > > +     readbuf = kzalloc(FEATURE_KBD_REPORT_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> > I see my suggestion to use __free here didn't materialize in code using
> > it even after Ilpo kindly wrote how to correctly use it.
> >
> > I think you can move the readbuf assignment right below buf and
> > take into account what Ilpo said.
> >
> > I don't expect new variables will be added here ever again,

It's also about always doing the right thing so others will pick up the 
pattern (for the cases when it's needed).

> > but I agree with Ilpo that it's a good idea here to write code
> > accounting for that possibility.
> >
> > It is my understanding that who proposes patches is expected to
> > resolve discussions when changes are proposed or to take into
> > account requested changes and submit a modified version.
> 
> It was ambiguous. I interpreted Ilpo's email as a dismissal

I tried to explain how to use it, not to suggest cleanup.h shouldn't be 
used.

> I will try to incorporate it if I do another revision. Although I do
> not think it improves things in this case as the function does not
> have multiple return statements.
> 
> > > +     if (!readbuf)
> > > +             return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > +     ret = hid_hw_raw_request(hdev, report_id, readbuf,
> > > +                              FEATURE_KBD_REPORT_SIZE, HID_FEATURE_REPORT,
> > > +                              HID_REQ_GET_REPORT);
> > > +     if (ret < 0) {
> > > +             hid_err(hdev, "Asus failed to receive handshake ack: %d\n", ret);
> > > +     } else if (memcmp(readbuf, buf, sizeof(buf)) != 0) {
> > > +             hid_warn(hdev, "Asus handshake returned invalid response: %*ph\n",
> > > +                     FEATURE_KBD_REPORT_SIZE, readbuf);
> > > +             /*
> > > +              * Do not return error if handshake is wrong until this is
> > > +              * verified to work for all devices.
> > > +              */
> > > +     }
> > >
> > > +     kfree(readbuf);
> > >       return ret;
> > >  }
> > >
> >
> 

-- 
 i.