linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: rtsx: fix incorrect last byte in R2 response

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, 14 Aug 2014 11:32:16 +0200
From:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:	Roger Tseng <rogerable@...ltek.com>
Cc:	Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org" 
	<driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
	Wei_wang <wei_wang@...lsil.com.cn>,
	micky <micky_ching@...lsil.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: rtsx: fix incorrect last byte in R2 response

On 14 August 2014 08:06, Roger Tseng <rogerable@...ltek.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 17:09 +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 11 August 2014 10:32,  <rogerable@...ltek.com> wrote:
>> > From: Roger Tseng <rogerable@...ltek.com>
>> >
>> > Current code erroneously fill the last byte of R2 response with an undefined
>> > value. In addition, it is impossible to obtain the real values since the
>> > controller actually 'offloads' the last byte(CRC7, end bit) while receiving R2
>> > response. This could cause mmc stack to obtain inconsistent CID from the same
>> > card after resume and misidentify it as a different card.
>> >
>> > Fix by assigning a dummy value 0x01 to the last byte of R2 response.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Roger Tseng <rogerable@...ltek.com>
>>
>> Thanks! Queued for 3.18.
>>
>> I guess this should go for stable as well?
> Yes. However, since rtsx_usb* is present in 3.16 and later, this patch
> will not apply on 3.15.y or older. Should I separately send an adapted
> version to stable?

I haven't pushed this externally yet. I will drop the patch from my 3.18 branch.

Then, let's split the patch into two, one for usb and one for pci -
that should simplify patch management.

Additionally, you should include a Cc tag with proper hashmark telling
which kernel each patch should be included into.

Kind regards
Uffe
--
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/