Re: 2.6.36/2.6.37: broken compatibility with userspace input-utils ?

Mark Lord
2011-01-26T19:27:10Z

On 11-01-26 01:24 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 03:29:09PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> Em 26-01-2011 14:51, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
>>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:18:29PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/input.c b/input.c
>>>> index d57a31e..a9bd5e8 100644
>>>> --- a/input.c
>>>> +++ b/input.c
>>>> @@ -101,8 +101,8 @@ int device_open(int nr, int verbose)
>>>> close(fd);
>>>> return -1;
>>>> }
>>>> - if (EV_VERSION != version) {
>>>> - fprintf(stderr, "protocol version mismatch (expected %d, got %d)\n",
>>>> + if (EV_VERSION > version) {
>>>> + fprintf(stderr, "protocol version mismatch (expected >= %d, got %d)\n",
>>>> EV_VERSION, version);
>>>
>>> Please do not do this. It causes check to "float" depending on the
>>> version of kernel headers it was compiled against.
>>>
>>> The check should be against concrete version (0x10000 in this case).
>>
>> The idea here is to not prevent it to load if version is 0x10001.
>> This is actually the only change that it is really needed (after applying
>> your KEY_RESERVED patch to 2.6.37) for the tool to work. Reverting it causes
>> the error:
>
> You did not understand. When comparing against EV_VERSION, if you
> compile on 2.6.32 you are comparing with 0x10000. If you are compiling
> on 2.6.37 you are comparing with 0x10001 as EV_VERSION value changes
> (not the value returned by EVIOCGVERSION, the value of the _define_
> itself).
>
> The proper check is:
>
> #define EVDEV_MIN_VERSION 0x10000
> if (version < EVDEV_MIN_VERSION) {
> fprintf(stderr,
> "protocol version mismatch (need at least %d, got %d)\n",
> EVDEV_MIN_VERSION, version);
> ...
> }

Guys, NO!

The proper check is actually to remove all of that silly VERSION testing
from the userspace binary. And then have it try EVIOCGKEYCODE_V2 first.
If EVIOCGKEYCODE_V2 fails (-ENOTTY, -EINVAL, or -ENOSYS), then
have it fall back to trying to use EVIOCGKEYCODE.

Of course this does assume that the new EVIOCGKEYCODE_V2 interface uses
correct ioctl return values..

Cheers