Re: [PATCH v9 04/11] HID: asus: fortify keyboard handshake

Denis Benato
2025-11-20T14:31:09Z

On 11/20/25 15:28, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 at 15:15, Denis Benato <benato.denis96@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/20/25 10:46, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote:
>>> Handshaking with an Asus device involves sending it a feature report
>>> with the string "ASUS Tech.Inc." and then reading it back to verify the
>>> handshake was successful, under the feature ID the interaction will
>>> take place.
>>>
>>> Currently, the driver only does the first part. Add the readback to
>>> verify the handshake was successful. As this could cause breakages,
>>> allow the verification to fail with a dmesg error until we verify
>>> all devices work with it (they seem to).
>>>
>>> Since the response is more than 16 bytes, increase the buffer size
>>> to 64 as well to avoid overflow errors.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@antheas.dev>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/hid/hid-asus.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-asus.c b/drivers/hid/hid-asus.c
>>> index 6de402d215d0..5149dc7edfc5 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-asus.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-asus.c
>>> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Asus HID Keyboard and TouchPad");
>>> #define FEATURE_REPORT_ID 0x0d
>>> #define INPUT_REPORT_ID 0x5d
>>> #define FEATURE_KBD_REPORT_ID 0x5a
>>> -#define FEATURE_KBD_REPORT_SIZE 16
>>> +#define FEATURE_KBD_REPORT_SIZE 64
>>> #define FEATURE_KBD_LED_REPORT_ID1 0x5d
>>> #define FEATURE_KBD_LED_REPORT_ID2 0x5e
>>>
>>> @@ -394,14 +394,40 @@ static int asus_kbd_set_report(struct hid_device *hdev, const u8 *buf, size_t bu
>>>
>>> static int asus_kbd_init(struct hid_device *hdev, u8 report_id)
>>> {
>>> + /*
>>> + * The handshake is first sent as a set_report, then retrieved
>>> + * from a get_report. They should be equal.
>>> + */
>>> const u8 buf[] = { report_id, 0x41, 0x53, 0x55, 0x53, 0x20, 0x54,
>>> 0x65, 0x63, 0x68, 0x2e, 0x49, 0x6e, 0x63, 0x2e, 0x00 };
>>> + u8 *readbuf;
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> ret = asus_kbd_set_report(hdev, buf, sizeof(buf));
>>> - if (ret < 0)
>>> - hid_err(hdev, "Asus failed to send init command: %d\n", ret);
>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>> + hid_err(hdev, "Asus failed to send handshake: %d\n", ret);
>>> + return ret;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + readbuf = kzalloc(FEATURE_KBD_REPORT_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
>> I see my suggestion to use __free here didn't materialize in code using
>> it even after Ilpo kindly wrote how to correctly use it.
>>
>> I think you can move the readbuf assignment right below buf and
>> take into account what Ilpo said.
>>
>> I don't expect new variables will be added here ever again,
>> but I agree with Ilpo that it's a good idea here to write code
>> accounting for that possibility.
>>
>> It is my understanding that who proposes patches is expected to
>> resolve discussions when changes are proposed or to take into
>> account requested changes and submit a modified version.
> It was ambiguous. I interpreted Ilpo's email as a dismissal
>
> I will try to incorporate it if I do another revision. Although I do
> not think it improves things in this case as the function does not
> have multiple return statements.
I will leave this decision to Ilpo, if he thinks there is no point in using
__free here I will add my Reviewed-by tag.
>>> + if (!readbuf)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + ret = hid_hw_raw_request(hdev, report_id, readbuf,
>>> + FEATURE_KBD_REPORT_SIZE, HID_FEATURE_REPORT,
>>> + HID_REQ_GET_REPORT);
>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>> + hid_err(hdev, "Asus failed to receive handshake ack: %d\n", ret);
>>> + } else if (memcmp(readbuf, buf, sizeof(buf)) != 0) {
>>> + hid_warn(hdev, "Asus handshake returned invalid response: %*ph\n",
>>> + FEATURE_KBD_REPORT_SIZE, readbuf);
>>> + /*
>>> + * Do not return error if handshake is wrong until this is
>>> + * verified to work for all devices.
>>> + */
>>> + }
>>>
>>> + kfree(readbuf);
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>>