On 6/1/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On 6/1/07, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > What I am trying to say - there already EVIOCSKEYCODE ioctl in the > kernel. And for force feedback devices to work you need to nable > writing to corresponding /dev/input/eventX thus opening possibility to > alter the keymap table. I guess you coudl analyze capabilities of a > device and only relax permissions for devices that have FF... Agreed. CAP_SYSADMIN or somesuch should be required for some of those IOCTLs, at least on keyboards. I don't see a problem with a digitizing tablet relaxing that to allow anyone, for example, so it makes sense to punt this test to the driver level (and not input layer level), or to make it configurable somehow from the driver level before registering the input device.
That is going to be a bitch to implement for HID devices which can be all of the above at once.
> Anyway, I think that we don't want ordinary users to alter hardware > keymapping, it should indeed be priveleged operation done by box's > administrator. Hopefully the infrastructure (hal/udev/whatever) will > be able to load proper keymap at boot time so even that is not needed. > > Why I think using kernel remapping_in addition_ to X remapping is better: Agreed. > The biggest cons for KEY_UNKNOWN + scancode is that presently we do > not have the code to iteract with user. Actually, it is more like "we don't have it, and it is non-trivial to do it right", if I understood Matthew correctly.
Yes, here I agree. There are quirks to be worked out. There is one more thing. If we alias KEY_FN_ESC through KEY_FN_B as KEY_GENACT* this will give us 20 general-purpose actions. If we add something like EVIOGSCANCODE to retrieve reverse mapping then distributions like Matthew's can just scan new input devices in udev and remap to KEY_GENACT* while we employ KEY_UNKNOWN + scancode on kernel level.
> >> > The standard setup in an office environment is likely to be > >> > multiuser. > >> > >> Huh? In my limited experience everyone in the office gets its own box. > >> And I am not talking about software shop. > > > >Standard is that everyone gets their own machine, but usually everyone > >has an account on all of them. > > Which is never used (except remotely)... Oh yes, it *is* used, and very much so.
Ok, different experiences I guess... -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
