Re: Linux USB HID should ignore values outside Logical Minimum/Maximum range

["Denilson Figueiredo de Sá" <denilsonsa@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:23:17 -0200, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz> wrote:

> On the other hand I feel like just dropping the report on the floor  
> should be the proper thing to do.

I'd say not the entire report, but just the invalid fields.

The HID specification (HID1_11.pdf) talks about "Null Values" at the  
section 5.10 (page 20).

[quote]
HID class devices support the ability to ignore selected fields in a  
report at run-
time. This is accomplished by declaring bit field in a report that is  
capable of
containing a range of values larger than those actually generated by the  
control. If
the host or the device receives an out-of-range value then the current  
value for the
respective control will not be modified.
[/quote]


(sidenote: Why didn't I mention this spec earlier? Because I knew I have  
read that information somewhere, but didn't find it again until today.)


> Christoph, how about the (untested at my side yet) patch below? It'd be
> nice if you could test with the device you are seeing the problem with  
> and let me know.

I can't test it *right now*, but I can probably test it in a week or two.


> +	/* Ignore absolute values that are out of bounds */
> +	if ((usage->type == EV_ABS && (value < field->logical_minimum ||
> +					value > field->logical_maximum))) {

Given what the HID spec says (as I quoted above), I'd change this  
condition to just:

> +	if (value < field->logical_minimum ||
> +					value > field->logical_maximum) {

On the other hand, HID spec also defines the "Null" bit of Input fields at  
page 31. This Null bit seems redundant for me, as (in my understanding)  
any value outside the range is automatically a null value. We wouldn't  
need a Null bit for that.

Anyway, another solution is to change that condition to something like  
this:

> +	if ( THIS_INPUT_FIELD_HAS_NULL_BIT_SET &&
> +                      (value < field->logical_minimum ||
> +					value > field->logical_maximum)) {

What do you think?


-- 
Denilson Figueiredo de Sá
Rio de Janeiro - Brasil