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]

Message-ID: <79856.1318571233@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:47:13 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Markus Rechberger <mrechberger@...il.com>
Cc:	James Courtier-Dutton <james.dutton@...il.com>,
	USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Increase USBFS Bulk Transfer size

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:42:44 +0200, Markus Rechberger said:

> The inflexible device which uses 24064 bytes works with all other
> Operating systems by using that value
> and gives exactly the same results with other transfer sizes than that.

-ENOPARSE.  If it's inflexible, how did you get results for other transfer
sizes? And if other transfer sizes give exactly the same results, why can't you
just use those instead?


Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped