linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] USB: serial: option: adding support for YUGA CLM920-NC5

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:   Tue, 19 Dec 2017 05:59:42 +0000
From:   SZ Lin (林上智) <SZ.Lin@...a.com>
To:     Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
CC:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Taiyi TY Wu (吳泰毅) <TaiyiTY.Wu@...a.com>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] USB: serial: option: adding support for YUGA CLM920-NC5

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjørn Mork [mailto:bjorn@...k.no]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 2:44 AM
> To: SZ Lin (林上智)
> Cc: Johan Hovold; Taiyi TY Wu (吳泰毅); Greg Kroah-Hartman;
> linux-usb@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: option: adding support for YUGA CLM920-NC5
> 
> Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> >> +static const struct option_blacklist_info yuga_clm920_nc5_blacklist = {
> >> +	.reserved = BIT(0) | BIT(1) | BIT(4), };
> >
> > Do you really need to blacklist the first interface?
> 
> Good question. Interface #0 does look a lot like a Qualcomm DM/DIAG function, based
> on two bulk endpoints, no additional descriptors and the fact that it is the first interface.
> If so, then we do want a serial driver for it.  There is a basic libqcdm implementation in
> ModemManager if you want to test it out.
> 

I have confirmed that interface #0 is QCDM/DIAG port in this module, and thus I will remove this from reserved list in next patch.
Furthermore, interface #1 is ADB port. Should I also remove this from reserved list?

> And I expect interface #4 is QMI/rmnet?  Feel free to confirm that assumption with a
> patch against qmi_wwan :-)
> 
Yes, it is. I will send qmi_wwan patch by all means.
> 
> Bjørn

SZ