netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Bluetooth: btusb: Indicate Microsoft vendor extension for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260

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: <CABmPvSGbVqnE82Se=ZfTM=h=WTJaibRfP+0Prvz2yxsDLK7Ukw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Mar 2020 17:11:21 -0700
From:   Miao-chen Chou <mcchou@...omium.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Bluetooth Kernel Mailing List <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Alain Michaud <alainm@...omium.org>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@...el.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Bluetooth: btusb: Indicate Microsoft vendor
 extension for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 1:16 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 00:59 -0700, Miao-chen Chou wrote:
> > This adds a bit mask of driver_info for Microsoft vendor extension and
> > indicates the support for Intel 9460/9560 and 9160/9260. See
> > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/bluetooth/
> > microsoft-defined-bluetooth-hci-commands-and-events for more information
> > about the extension. This was verified with Intel ThunderPeak BT controller
> > where msft_vnd_ext_opcode is 0xFC1E.
> []
> > diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h b/include/net/bluetooth/hci_core.h
> []
> > @@ -414,6 +414,8 @@ struct hci_dev {
> >       void                    *smp_data;
> >       void                    *smp_bredr_data;
> >
> > +     void                    *msft_ext;
>
> Why should this be a void * and not a msft_vnd_ext * ?
The intention is to hide msft_vnd_ext from the driver.