On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:32:00 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> > > Is it worth adding report->id to this hid_warn()?
> > >
> > > A valid device is not expected to ever send >64 bytes reports but in
> > > case a firmware update would do so it would help
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > Is it worth adding report->id to this hid_warn()?
> >
> > A valid device is not expected to ever send >64 bytes reports but in
> > case a firmware update would do so it would help to know for which
> > report it was.
>
> It definitely wouldn't hurt.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Bruno Prémont wrote:
> > The report passed to us from transport driver could potentially be
> > arbitrarily large, therefore we better sanity-check it so that raw_data
> > that we hold in picolcd_pending structure are always kept within proper
> > bounds.
> >
> > Cc:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:13:15 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina wrote:
> The report passed to us from transport driver could potentially be
> arbitrarily large, therefore we better sanity-check it so that raw_data
> that we hold in picolcd_pending structure are always kept within proper
> bounds.
>
>
The report passed to us from transport driver could potentially be
arbitrarily large, therefore we better sanity-check it so that raw_data
that we hold in picolcd_pending structure are always kept within proper
bounds.
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Steven Vittitoe
Signed-off-by:
The report passed to us from transport driver could potentially be
arbitrarily large, therefore we better sanity-check it so that raw_data
that we hold in picolcd_pending structure are always kept within proper
bounds.
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Steven Vittitoe scvi...@google.com
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:13:15 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina wrote:
The report passed to us from transport driver could potentially be
arbitrarily large, therefore we better sanity-check it so that raw_data
that we hold in picolcd_pending structure are always kept within proper
bounds.
Cc:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Bruno Prémont wrote:
The report passed to us from transport driver could potentially be
arbitrarily large, therefore we better sanity-check it so that raw_data
that we hold in picolcd_pending structure are always kept within proper
bounds.
Cc:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Jiri Kosina wrote:
Is it worth adding report-id to this hid_warn()?
A valid device is not expected to ever send 64 bytes reports but in
case a firmware update would do so it would help to know for which
report it was.
It definitely wouldn't hurt. Pull request
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:32:00 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Jiri Kosina wrote:
Is it worth adding report-id to this hid_warn()?
A valid device is not expected to ever send 64 bytes reports but in
case a firmware update would do so it would help to know for
10 matches
Mail list logo
