| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:03:46 +0200 From: iSteve <isteve@...ez.cz> To: Sergey Vlasov <vsu@...linux.ru>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: broken modules.alias entries for some USB devices On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:30:35 +0400 Sergey Vlasov <vsu@...linux.ru> wrote: > The problem is that the bcdDevice field is supposed to be BCD - i.e., > its hex representation should contain only decimal digits 0..9. > Therefore a proper USB device cannot have bcdDevice == 0x030a. > Apparently some ibmcam devices violate this and use the bcdDevice field > as if it was binary. > > The code in scripts/mod/file2alias.c assumes that the bcdDevice_lo and > bcdDevice_hi field contain proper BCD data. Seems that, thanks to buggy > hardware, this assumption is incorrect, and the code needs to support > any hex numbers there. So the 'correct' alias for this device should be eg.: usb:v0545p800Dd030Adc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip* right? Given this new info... what if _lo is 0x030a and _hi is 0x030f? How would the alias look like? Or worse, what if _lo is 0x030a and _hi is 0x040a? Would these be correct? usb:v0545p800Dd030[A-F]dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip* usb:v0545p800Dd0[30A-40A]dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip* Thanks in advance. -- -- iSteve - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists