From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Nocera Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Input: define keys for WWAN and SES Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:01:46 +0100 Message-ID: <1385643706.17991.9.camel@nuvo> References: <1385639293-23225-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <529731CB.3010107@hauke-m.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:42564 "EHLO relay3-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751102Ab3K1NBw convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:01:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= Cc: Hauke Mehrtens , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Kosina On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 13:32 +0100, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki wrote: > 2013/11/28 Hauke Mehrtens : > > On 11/28/2013 12:48 PM, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki wrote: > >> This is just a RFC, so be nice to this "patch", please ;) > >> > >> My goal is to add support for buttons on bcm47xx arch. However aft= er > >> analyzing existing database of devices I realized I don't know wha= t code > >> I should assign to some buttons. > >> > >> First of all, older routers often have a "SES" button. SES stands = for > >> SecureEasySetup and is Broadcom's proprietary protocol which was l= ater > >> replaced with WPS (Wi-Fi Protected Setup). > >> Btw. WPS appeared to be broken because it's easy to attack it with > >> brutal-force method. > > > > Only a badly implemented WPS pin authentication is vulnerable to th= e > > brute force attack, as far as I know. >=20 > Oh, indeed, I missed that. Thanks! >=20 > >> I'm not sure if any distribution have any interest > >> in using that buttons, but it still would be nice to have support = for > >> them in kernel. One option is to add KEY_SES for this purpose. > >> Is this the right way? It's similar to the KEY_WPS_BUTTON, but I w= anted > >> to somehow distinct them. Is there any other option? Should I use > >> KEY_UNKNOWN or BTN_MISC or BTN_n? > > > > I do not think you or someone else plans to implement SecureEasySet= up on > > a device running current Linux kernel, why not use the WPS button k= ey > > for for these button. If someone wants to implement this just use t= he > > WPS button key for that. >=20 > I'm just not sure about possible scenarios. I imagined end-user > pressing SES button router and SES button on a device and complaining > it's not working (because of SES being interpreted as WPS). >=20 > If you guys think we should just use WPS for the SES button, I'm OK w= ith that. Isn't the fact that it returns WPS or SES an implementation detail? Is WPS vs. SES just a software choice, or a hardware one? If it's a hardware one, you'd expect to have other ways to discover whether SES o= r WPS was requested (because that's the one supported by the hardware). I= f it's a software choice, then you'd expect the button to one or the othe= r based on the software stack. Or are both possible at the same time, and there are devices with both buttons? Seems that adding a note that other similar "pairing" methods for Wi-Fi could be triggered when the button is used, in input.h would be enough. Cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html