Re: [PATCH v2] HID: core: demote warning to debug level

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2026, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:

> On Aug 24 2026, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Aug 2026, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > 
> > > On Aug 24 2026, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2026, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Sat, 23 May 2026, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > From: Matteo Croce <teknoraver@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The log level for short  messages was changed from debug to warning,
> > > > > > flooding syslog on systems with devices that regularly send
> > > > > > short reports, in my case an UPS:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     $ dmesg |grep -c 'Event data for report .* was too short'
> > > > > >     35
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Demote it back to debug level.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Fixes: 0a3fe972a7cb ("HID: core: Mitigate potential OOB by removing bogus memset()")
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce <teknoraver@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Applied, thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > FWIW, I'd like to contest this patch.
> > > > 
> > > > The warning is real.  It means that the HID report was rejected and as
> > > > such something on the system will be now be non-functional.  Silencing
> > > > the warning is not helpful.  It does not fix the issue, and now the user
> > > > / admin has no idea that its even happening.
> > > > 
> > > > This warning has caught a bunch of genuine issues related to testing
> > > > infrastructure and incorrectly coded firmware that have subsequently
> > > > been rectified.
> > > > 
> > > > Please don't hide this issue.  Fix the root cause instead.
> > > 
> > > Please have a look at the actual code in the tree first. That patch was
> > > applied by Jiri, yes, but IIRC it was dropped in a merge commit and is
> > > not included in any trees AFAICT.
> > 
> > Sure, but there was an attempt to have it reapplied [0].
> > 
> > My plea goes out to both submissions.
> > 
> > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aoF-jIn9gk9kJ7Pz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> It would have been so much easier to reply to the bump instead of the
> old original submission. The bump had all the references on the commit
> shas where they were included and overwritten, which would have saved me
> time.

It was 50/50 and I chose the original patch.

The important thing is that the point was made.

Sorry if it took you the extra cycles to work it all out.

> FWIW, that bump doesn't show up in my public-inbox query, which is why I
> did not saw it.

-- 
Lee Jones