linux-kernel - Re: USB autosuspend vs. URB submission

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:37:06 +0100
From:	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	mdharm-usb@...-eyed-alien.net, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: USB autosuspend vs. URB submission

On Thursday 10 January 2013 10:20:42 Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> > In the long run it is probably a good idea to pass duplicated URBs to usbmon by
> > a special code path.
> 
> I'd prefer to add extra information to the WARN_ONCE message.  Even 
> though it would require the extra effort of correlating the dmesg 
> output with the usbmon output.

A stack_trace() I presume.
But what is the use of needing two logs?

> You know, it's possible that the URB really was not submitted before 
> but instead the urb->hcpriv field got overwritten.  Of course, that 
> would also be a bug.

We could log a corrupted URB generically speaking.

	Regards
		Oliver

--
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/