linux-kernel - Re: PATCH 10/4]linux-usb: To support more Huawei data card product IDs, fix kernel 2.6.27-rc7

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:38:14 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	fangxiaozhi 00110321 <huananhu@...wei.com>
cc:	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<zihan@...wei.com>, <Lin.Lei@...wei.com>,
	<zhangqianchun@...wei.com>, <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH 10/4]linux-usb: To support more Huawei data card product
 IDs, fix kernel 2.6.27-rc7

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, fangxiaozhi 00110321 wrote:

>  From: fangxiaozhi <huananhu@...wei.com>
>  
>  1. This patch is based on the kernel of 2.6.27-rc7 2. To declare the unusual device for new Huawei data card devices 
>  in unusual_devs.h
>  3. To modify the data value and length in the function of 
>  usb_stor_huawei_e220_init in initializers.c

Is this really a good idea?  Haven't a lot of people worked on that 
function and carefully made it do what they want?  If yes then your 
changes will break their systems.

Or have I confused it with a different initializer?


> --- linux-2.6.27-rc7-orig/drivers/usb/storage/initializers.c	2008-09-22 06:29:55.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.27-rc7/drivers/usb/storage/initializers.c	2008-09-24 12:04:40.000000000 +0800
> @@ -95,11 +95,11 @@ int usb_stor_huawei_e220_init(struct us_
>  {
>  	int result;
>  
> -	us->iobuf[0] = 0x1;
> +	us->iobuf[0] = 0x0;
>  	result = usb_stor_control_msg(us, us->send_ctrl_pipe,
>  				      USB_REQ_SET_FEATURE,
>  				      USB_TYPE_STANDARD | USB_RECIP_DEVICE,
> -				      0x01, 0x0, us->iobuf, 0x1, 1000);
> +				      0x01, 0x0, us->iobuf, 0x0, 1000);

What reason is there for setting us->iobuf[0] to 0, or passing
us->iobuf as an argument, if the length is 0?

> --- linux-2.6.27-rc7-orig/drivers/usb/storage/unusual_devs.h	2008-09-22 06:29:55.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.27-rc7/drivers/usb/storage/unusual_devs.h	2008-09-24 12:08:58.000000000 +0800
> @@ -1622,11 +1622,21 @@ UNUSUAL_DEV( 0x12d1, 0x1401, 0x0000, 0x0
>  		"Mass Storage",
>  		US_SC_DEVICE, US_PR_DEVICE, usb_stor_huawei_e220_init,
>  		0),
> +UNUSUAL_DEV( 0x12d1, 0x1402, 0x0000, 0x0000,
> +                "HUAWEI MOBILE",
> +		"Mass Storage",
> +		US_SC_DEVICE, US_PR_DEVICE, usb_stor_huawei_e220_init,
> +                0),		

Please use tabs for indentation, not spaces.

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/