linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.25-rc6: CONFIG_USB

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, 10 Jun 2008 10:59:18 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc6: CONFIG_USB_PERSIST forced on

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> Am Montag 09 Juni 2008 23:56:51 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> > On Mon 2008-06-09 14:39:10, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I believe we should just revert the "CONFIG_USB_PERSIST force on"
> > > > patch, and solve this properly in 2.6.27.
> > > 
> > > Why?
> > > 
> > > The code would _still_ be buggy with that revert in place. You have to 
> > > enable CONFIG_USB_PERSIST just to get even the _possibility_ of the sane 
> > > behavior. 
> > > 
> > > If there is a problem with usblp, it just needs to be fixed. 
> > 
> > With USB_PERSIST on, you have problem on all drivers but usb-storage,
> > AFAICT... because usb-storage seems to be the only driver implementing
> > reset_resume.
> > 
> > I guess it is possible to do something like "if reset_resume() is
> > unavailable, try plain resume()" in usb/driver.c, but I'd really
> > changes to the suspend/resume callback to go in -rc1 so that they are
> > tested properly, and not hot-patch it now.
> 
> If a hotfix it must be, here's my take. It works for me, but it isn't
> tested well.
> Alan, what do you think?

I don't have time right now to check it; will do so later today.  At 
first glance it seems okay -- it doesn't cover absolutely all the 
cases, but it does cover system sleep transitions.  And it's clearly 
better than what Linus proposed.

Alan Stern

--
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/