linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] usb: gadget: f

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: <56D9D74E.5050004@ladisch.de>
Date:	Fri, 4 Mar 2016 19:43:26 +0100
From:	Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>
To:	Felipe Ferreri Tonello <eu@...ipetonello.com>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] usb: gadget: f_midi: refactor state machine

Felipe Ferreri Tonello wrote:
> On March 4, 2016 8:07:40 AM GMT+00:00, Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de> wrote:
>> Felipe Ferreri Tonello wrote:
>>> On 03/03/16 11:38, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
>>>> But in what way was the old state machine not "proper"?
>>>
>>> Because it didn't reflect all the correct and possible MIDI states
>>
>> The whole point of the one-byte real-time messages is that they do not
>> affect the parsing of the surrounding MIDI stream.  So not making them
>> part of the state machine is the proper way of handling them.  (Also
>> see the flowchart in appendix A of the spec.)
>
> I really don't get your point. So why do we have a state machine at all?

To parse all the other messages.


Regards,
Clemens