Hello, Following up on a conversation from last year (cf. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-input/CAO-hwJLfY+D0NyCUCncrjcXETKwOBqj1CuHtB_mtGhYfKV0Bww@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/) about how to approach differing opinions about how drivers should work between userspace and kernel, we're looking for a way to effectively stop the kernel from doing anything "smart" with a a HID device, e.g. a hid-sony device, when the associated hidraw is opened. At the moment, we have a specialized daemon that will find the mouse evdev associated with the controller when it's created and inhibit it, but this is anything but ideal and only handles the mouse itself, not the kernel logic in general. You can also see the hackish way this is implemented in the hid-steam driver, which uses an intermediary hid ll_driver to intercept the open and close commands and stop passing data if the hidraw gets opened. I consider this implementation to be very much a hack and an anti-pattern, and I think other HID implementers would agree, but I'm not sure there's a cleaner way to detect this in the kernel at the moment. I see a bit of a difference of opinion as to what should be happening here between developers on our end and the kernel end. Our position is "we have a userspace driver that does everything we want, we'd like the kernel to stop trying to be smart when our driver is active", and I expect the kernel developer opinion is "why should you have a userspace driver at all when our kernel driver is fine, and if it's not you can upstream patches?", so there's probably some need to find a middle ground if we want things to work well for users in the end. We'd previously discussed an ioctl for the hidraw, or perhaps an eBPF approach, though I think at the time of that discussion, eBPF wasn't mature for the HID subsystem. I don't know the current state of that, or if it's possible to do this with just write access to the hidraw device (the ideal case for how we want to handle this--root is pretty much out of the question for an "ideal case"). Since we still don't have a good answer for this, as far as I'm aware, I'd like to try to reach an approach that's amicable for both sides. I know that the ioctl approach meant having to introduce logic for programs in userspace, but in this specific case, and possibly others, that's actually what we're looking for. Further, the reason root is out is because Steam isn't the OS (in most cases), and we want this to only happen when Steam is running. Having to run a daemon as root underneath Steam would require something like a setuid binary or custom sudo/polkit rules, which of course need root to set up anyway. So while eBPF may fit some use cases, e.g. full control over the system via DE or systemd, etc, it's not what we're looking for here. Does anyone have opinions on how to proceed from here? Vicki
