linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] enable usb control message with class specific request

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1109221100270.2137-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:12:51 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Matthias Dellweg <2500@....de>
cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@...il.com>,
	Michal Sojka <sojkam1@....cvut.cz>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] enable usb control message with class specific request

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Matthias Dellweg wrote:

> Hi!
> Usb devio assumes that the wIndex in every control message apart from
> those flagged as USB_TYPE_VENDOR holds the number of the Interface
> being addressed. This is for example not true for the class specific
> request GET_DEVICE_ID in the printer class:
> 
> "The high-byte of the wIndex field is used to specify the zero-based
> interface index. The low-byte of the wIndex field is used to specify
> the zero-based alternate setting." [1]
> 
> In this special case it misinterpretes the alternate setting 1 for the
> interface and tries to claim a nonexisting one. Therefor you won't get
> the printers name.
> 
> The patch below is a minimal approach to fix this. Maybe it should be
> extended to USB_TYPE_RESERVED. Maybe there should be an extended test
> that knows something about specific classes.
> 
> What do you think?
> regards Matthias
> 
> [1] http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/usbprint11.pdf

In this case, it appears that the printer class specification 
contradicts the USB-2.0 specification.  Section 9.3.1 says (referring 
to the low-order five bits of bmRequestType):

	Requests may be directed to the device, an interface on the 
	device, or a specific endpoint on a device. This field also
	specifies the intended recipient of the request. When an
	interface or endpoint is specified, the wIndex field identifies
	the interface or endpoint.

And Figure 9-3 shows that when wIndex is used to specify an interface, 
the interface number belongs in the low-order byte, not the high-order 
byte.

I don't think it's safe to relax the test the way you have suggested.
There are too many other class-specific requests that must be 
prevented.  Maybe an exception could be added for this one particular 
case.  Besides, you don't want to remove the test entirely -- you want 
to use the high-order byte of wIndex instead of the low-order byte.

The printer spec really is spectacularly bad in this respect.  What 
happens if the printer is a composite device, and the other interface 
uses the same bmRequestType and bRequest values for its own 
class-specific purpose, but uses the low-order byte of wIndex to 
indicate the interface number (as it should).  Then the printer 
wouldn't know which interface was supposed to respond to the message!

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/