2013/11/28 Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 11/28/2013 12:48 PM, Rafał Miłecki 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 after >> analyzing existing database of devices I realized I don't know what 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 later >> 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 the > brute force attack, as far as I know. Oh, indeed, I missed that. Thanks! >> 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 wanted >> 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 SecureEasySetup on > a device running current Linux kernel, why not use the WPS button key > for for these button. If someone wants to implement this just use the > WPS button key for that. 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). If you guys think we should just use WPS for the SES button, I'm OK with that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
