linux-kernel - Re: usb-storage: Wait less time for settling when a memory device is connected

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]

Message-ID: <20090306174913.GB3099@kroah.com>
Date:	Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:49:13 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Martin Bammer <mrbm74@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: usb-storage: Wait less time for settling when a memory device
	is connected

On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 11:34:07AM +0100, Martin Bammer wrote:
> Hi,

First off, usb issues/patches should be sent to the
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org list so they don't get ignored.

> I was wondering why the usb-storage driver waits for my usb-stick and my
> sdhc-card 5s before scanning. IMHO this is only needed for HDs. I've
> created a patch for the driver which shortens the timeout to 1s when a
> memory device is detected.
> But I'm not shure if the detection code is right for all devices. This
> maybe has to be tested and discussed.
> I've tested it with a usb-stick, a sdhc-card and a usb-harddrive.
> This patch is created for kernel 2.6.27.18.
> 
> Please CC me for answers to this thread.
> 
> --- a/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c 2009-03-03 23:33:37.000000000 +0100
> +++ b/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c 2009-03-03 23:32:44.000000000 +0100
> @@ -913,10 +913,16 @@ static int usb_stor_scan_thread(void * _
>  
>         set_freezable();
>  
> +       /* Shorten delay time for memory sticks/cards */
> +       if ((1 == us->pusb_dev->descriptor.iManufacturer)
> +           && (2 == us->pusb_dev->descriptor.iProduct)
> +           && (3 == us->pusb_dev->descriptor.iSerialNumber)
> +           && (delay_use > 0)) delay_use = 1;

Please always run your patches through scripts/checkpatch.pl first.

Why are you testing for the manufacturer and product here?

And what's wrong with just changing the module parameter for delay_use,
that is what it is there for.  No kernel patch should be needed.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/