Hi,
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:11 AM Kai-Heng Feng
<kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Commit 71f6fa90a353 ("HID: increase maximum global item tag report size
> to 256") increases the max report size from 128 to 256.
>
> We also need to update the report size in hid_field_extract() otherwise
> it complains and truncates now valid report size:
> [ 406.165461] hid-sensor-hub 001F:8086:22D8.0002: hid_field_extract() called with n (192) > 32! (kworker/5:1)
>
> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1818547
> Fixes: 71f6fa90a353 ("HID: increase maximum global item tag report size to 256")
> Signed-off-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/hid/hid-core.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-core.c b/drivers/hid/hid-core.c
> index 9993b692598f..860e21ec6a49 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-core.c
> @@ -1301,10 +1301,10 @@ static u32 __extract(u8 *report, unsigned offset, int n)
> u32 hid_field_extract(const struct hid_device *hid, u8 *report,
> unsigned offset, unsigned n)
Ronald (Cc-ed) raised quite a good point:
what's the benefit of removing the error message if this function (and
__extract) can only report an unsigned 32 bits value?
My take is we should revert 94a9992f7dbdfb28976b upstream and think at
a better solution.
Cheers,
Benjamin
> {
> - if (n > 32) {
> - hid_warn(hid, "hid_field_extract() called with n (%d) > 32! (%s)\n",
> + if (n > 256) {
> + hid_warn(hid, "hid_field_extract() called with n (%d) > 256! (%s)\n",
> n, current->comm);
> - n = 32;
> + n = 256;
> }
>
> return __extract(report, offset, n);
> --
> 2.17.1
>
