linux-kernel - Re: [Patch] Increase USBFS Bulk Transfer size

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:	Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:00:38 +0200
From:	Mihai Moldovan <ionic@...ic.de>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Increase USBFS Bulk Transfer size

Hi Greg,

* On 12.10.2011 04:17 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> As stated before, this patch is not acceptable. Please work to figure
> out the real reason for your device problems here, this is not the
> correct solution at all.

I've gone through this whole (and previous) thread, but couldn't find a
real argument why this is so wrong.
So far everybody has argued that it's 'wrong' and may break older user
code. The latter argument even is wrong, as drivers not requiring a
higher bulk transfer size just aren't affected.

This being said, I agree that allocating more memory than needed is
wasting memory and bad, if it can be avoided. On the other hand, we're
talking about very few devices here and not several ten of MB system
memory being wasted by all bulk transfers in total.
I basically see two cases:
  - systems with a few MB of RAM. I highly doubt those use usbfs anyway
(usually other stuff like usb-storage)
  - systems with 'enough' system memory. In this case the problem is
purely... let's call it 'academic'. You can discuss it lengthly in
theory, but won't even notice it in practice.

Best regards,


Mihai


Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4369 bytes)