linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: f_midi: Fixed a bug when buflen was smaller than wMaxPacketSize

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: <56E7DA72.1090109@ladisch.de>
Date:	Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:48:34 +0100
From:	Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>
To:	Felipe Ferreri Tonello <eu@...ipetonello.com>,
	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
	Robert Baldyga <r.baldyga@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: f_midi: Fixed a bug when buflen was smaller
 than wMaxPacketSize

Felipe Ferreri Tonello wrote:
> On 11/03/16 23:07, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>> I’m also wondering whether it would be beneficial to get rid of buflen
>> all together and use wMaxPacketSie for in endpoints as well?  Is that
>> feasible?
>
> Yes, we could just remove the buflen parameter.
>
> The only scenario where I can see buflen been "useful" is if the user
> wants to have a smaller buffer size for the OUT endpoint. Should we
> support this case or not?

Splitting data into multiple packets would not make sense from
a performance perspective.  The only possible reason would be to work
around a (theoretical) bug in some host software that does not handle
larger buffers, but there aren't that many host implementations, and I
am not aware of any with such a bug.


Regards,
Clemens