linux-kernel - Re: usbmon: size of different fields?

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]

Message-Id: <4F035C08-41FC-4898-93A2-96D86E3F31C1@alum.mit.edu>
Date:	Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:36:58 -0800
From:	Guy Harris <guy@...m.mit.edu>
To:	Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@...hat.com>
Cc:	Developer support list for Wireshark 
	<wireshark-dev@...eshark.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: usbmon: size of different fields?

On Nov 10, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:23:28 -0800
> Guy Harris <guy@...m.mit.edu> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Németh Márton wrote:
>> 
>>> OK, that's clear, the byte order of the API structure fields are in "host endian"
>>> order. The API structures are already saved by Wireshark into file for quite some
>>> time.
>> 
>> ...and tcpdump.  Support for capturing on USB on Linux has been in
>> libpcap since at least libpcap 1.0.
> 
> I imagined that Nemeth wanted to implement an alternative to that.

I hadn't heard him propose that.

It might be a good idea...

> Surely he knows how libpcap works. In that case a new, host-independent
> format may be introduced.

...and, if done, it would be ideal if it were also designed to be platform-dependent, so that it didn't have Linux implementation details leaking through; that could let it be used if other platforms offer a way to watch USB operations.

Are the formats of the USB header and the isochronous descriptors guaranteed never to change?  If not, a new format should definitely be introduced, as, for example, with the mmapped buffer, we just pass to the capture callback a pointer to the item in that buffer.  However, given that the capture callback is just passed a single pointer to the packet data, access to the mmapped buffer would have to be done by constructing the new header in a mallocated buffer *AND* all the packet data will have to be copied to that buffer, so a lot more data copying will be done.--
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/