When we receive a RMI4 report, we should not unconditionally send an
input_sync event. Instead, we should let the rmi4 transport layer do it
for us.
This fixes a situation where we might receive X in a report and the rest
in a subsequent one. And this messes up user space.
Link: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100436
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <[email protected]>
---
Hi,
Oscar, do you mind if we add your "Tested-by: Oscar Morante <your@email>"?
Andrew, can you check for any sides effects please?
Cheers,
Benjamin
drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c b/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
index 9c9362149641..9e33165250a3 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
@@ -413,6 +413,24 @@ static int rmi_event(struct hid_device *hdev, struct hid_field *field,
return 0;
}
+static void rmi_report(struct hid_device *hid, struct hid_report *report)
+{
+ struct hid_field *field = report->field[0];
+
+ if (!(hid->claimed & HID_CLAIMED_INPUT))
+ return;
+
+ switch (report->id) {
+ case RMI_READ_DATA_REPORT_ID:
+ /* fall-through */
+ case RMI_ATTN_REPORT_ID:
+ return;
+ }
+
+ if (field && field->hidinput && field->hidinput->input)
+ input_sync(field->hidinput->input);
+}
+
#ifdef CONFIG_PM
static int rmi_suspend(struct hid_device *hdev, pm_message_t message)
{
@@ -637,6 +655,7 @@ static int rmi_probe(struct hid_device *hdev, const struct hid_device_id *id)
hid_set_drvdata(hdev, data);
hdev->quirks |= HID_QUIRK_NO_INIT_REPORTS;
+ hdev->quirks |= HID_QUIRK_NO_INPUT_SYNC;
ret = hid_parse(hdev);
if (ret) {
@@ -744,6 +763,7 @@ static struct hid_driver rmi_driver = {
.remove = rmi_remove,
.event = rmi_event,
.raw_event = rmi_raw_event,
+ .report = rmi_report,
.input_mapping = rmi_input_mapping,
.input_configured = rmi_input_configured,
#ifdef CONFIG_PM
--
2.14.3
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 02:51:06PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> When we receive a RMI4 report, we should not unconditionally send an
> input_sync event. Instead, we should let the rmi4 transport layer do it
> for us.
>
> This fixes a situation where we might receive X in a report and the rest
> in a subsequent one. And this messes up user space.
>
> Link: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100436
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <[email protected]>
> ---
yes please!
Acked-by: Peter Hutterer <[email protected]>
Cheers,
Peter
>
> Hi,
>
> Oscar, do you mind if we add your "Tested-by: Oscar Morante <your@email>"?
>
> Andrew, can you check for any sides effects please?
>
> Cheers,
> Benjamin
>
> drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c b/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
> index 9c9362149641..9e33165250a3 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
> @@ -413,6 +413,24 @@ static int rmi_event(struct hid_device *hdev, struct hid_field *field,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void rmi_report(struct hid_device *hid, struct hid_report *report)
> +{
> + struct hid_field *field = report->field[0];
> +
> + if (!(hid->claimed & HID_CLAIMED_INPUT))
> + return;
> +
> + switch (report->id) {
> + case RMI_READ_DATA_REPORT_ID:
> + /* fall-through */
> + case RMI_ATTN_REPORT_ID:
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (field && field->hidinput && field->hidinput->input)
> + input_sync(field->hidinput->input);
> +}
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> static int rmi_suspend(struct hid_device *hdev, pm_message_t message)
> {
> @@ -637,6 +655,7 @@ static int rmi_probe(struct hid_device *hdev, const struct hid_device_id *id)
> hid_set_drvdata(hdev, data);
>
> hdev->quirks |= HID_QUIRK_NO_INIT_REPORTS;
> + hdev->quirks |= HID_QUIRK_NO_INPUT_SYNC;
>
> ret = hid_parse(hdev);
> if (ret) {
> @@ -744,6 +763,7 @@ static struct hid_driver rmi_driver = {
> .remove = rmi_remove,
> .event = rmi_event,
> .raw_event = rmi_raw_event,
> + .report = rmi_report,
> .input_mapping = rmi_input_mapping,
> .input_configured = rmi_input_configured,
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> --
> 2.14.3
>
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Benjamin Tissoires
<[email protected]> wrote:
> When we receive a RMI4 report, we should not unconditionally send an
> input_sync event. Instead, we should let the rmi4 transport layer do it
> for us.
>
> This fixes a situation where we might receive X in a report and the rest
> in a subsequent one. And this messes up user space.
>
> Link: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100436
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> Hi,
>
> Oscar, do you mind if we add your "Tested-by: Oscar Morante <your@email>"?
As mentioned in comment 25 of the bug above
(https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100436#c25), oscar is
fine adding his tested-by line.
Cheers,
Benjamin
>
> Andrew, can you check for any sides effects please?
>
> Cheers,
> Benjamin
>
> drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c b/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
> index 9c9362149641..9e33165250a3 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
> @@ -413,6 +413,24 @@ static int rmi_event(struct hid_device *hdev, struct hid_field *field,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void rmi_report(struct hid_device *hid, struct hid_report *report)
> +{
> + struct hid_field *field = report->field[0];
> +
> + if (!(hid->claimed & HID_CLAIMED_INPUT))
> + return;
> +
> + switch (report->id) {
> + case RMI_READ_DATA_REPORT_ID:
> + /* fall-through */
> + case RMI_ATTN_REPORT_ID:
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (field && field->hidinput && field->hidinput->input)
> + input_sync(field->hidinput->input);
> +}
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> static int rmi_suspend(struct hid_device *hdev, pm_message_t message)
> {
> @@ -637,6 +655,7 @@ static int rmi_probe(struct hid_device *hdev, const struct hid_device_id *id)
> hid_set_drvdata(hdev, data);
>
> hdev->quirks |= HID_QUIRK_NO_INIT_REPORTS;
> + hdev->quirks |= HID_QUIRK_NO_INPUT_SYNC;
>
> ret = hid_parse(hdev);
> if (ret) {
> @@ -744,6 +763,7 @@ static struct hid_driver rmi_driver = {
> .remove = rmi_remove,
> .event = rmi_event,
> .raw_event = rmi_raw_event,
> + .report = rmi_report,
> .input_mapping = rmi_input_mapping,
> .input_configured = rmi_input_configured,
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> --
> 2.14.3
>
On Fri, 25 May 2018, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> When we receive a RMI4 report, we should not unconditionally send an
> input_sync event. Instead, we should let the rmi4 transport layer do it
> for us.
>
> This fixes a situation where we might receive X in a report and the rest
> in a subsequent one. And this messes up user space.
>
> Link: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100436
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> Hi,
>
> Oscar, do you mind if we add your "Tested-by: Oscar Morante <your@email>"?
>
> Andrew, can you check for any sides effects please?
I have now added Oscar's Tested-by: line and queued in for-4.18/rmi. In
case any sideeffects are discovered, I'll either not include for-4.18/rmi
in the push to Linus, or we'll do incremental fixups on top (depending on
the nature of the side-effects :) ).
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs