linux-kernel - Re: [REGRESSION] [nailed] USB boot failure: USB: EHCI: make ehci-pci a separate driver

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, 13 Feb 2013 08:16:28 +0100
From:	Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>
To:	Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] [nailed] USB boot failure: USB: EHCI: make ehci-pci
 a separate driver

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 07:44:36AM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> So, what to do? I'm now going to do some experimentation with git revert
> on some revision, and I'm trying to establish the USB port dependency
> (BIOS-owned handoff root hub invisible!?, as discussed in initial mail).

After some bingo moment, seems the solution is easier than expected:

andi@...inet:~$ ls /tmp/initrd_extracted/lib/modules/3.7.0-rc5+/kernel/drivers/usb/host/
ehci-hcd.ko  ohci-hcd.ko  uhci-hcd.ko  xhci-hcd.ko
andi@...inet:~$ ls /lib/modules/3.7.0-rc5+/kernel/drivers/usb/host/
ehci-hcd.ko  isp116x-hcd.ko   sl811_cs.ko   uhci-hcd.ko
ehci-pci.ko  ohci-hcd.ko      sl811-hcd.ko  whci
hwa-hc.ko    r8a66597-hcd.ko  u132-hcd.ko   xhci-hcd.ko

So it's probably only that the initrd simply fails to ship
the ehci-pci.ko module (I could verify this by extending initrd content, BTW).
Now the question would be:
are modules listed in a static list on initramfs package/config side,
or does the kernel fail to signal the list of required modules properly?
(e.g. did some config-side files fail to get upgraded for this dependency??)

So maybe it's not a "regression" per se, but it's at least a grave
usability issue on kernel upgrade which should be handled as benignly as
possible (i.e., without any disruption).

Thanks,

Andreas Mohr
--
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/