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  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:	Sat, 14 May 2016 22:39:18 +0200
From:	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	"Du\, Changbin" <changbin.du@...el.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"gregkh\@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"rui.silva\@linaro.org" <rui.silva@...aro.org>,
	"k.opasiak\@samsung.com" <k.opasiak@...sung.com>,
	"lars\@metafoo.de" <lars@...afoo.de>,
	"linux-usb\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: f_fs: report error if excess data received

On Fri, May 13 2016, Alan Stern wrote:
> The point is that you don't know whether the host sent more data than
> expected.  All you know is that the host sent more data than the user
> asked the kernel for -- but maybe the user didn't ask for all the data
> that he expected.  Maybe the user wanted to retrieve the full set of
> data using two read() system calls.

I was wondering about that for a while actually.  So far, f_fs’ model
was: one read, one request.  Splitting requests would certainly be
possible, but is that what f_fs’ users would expect to happen if host
rounds the request up?

-- 
Best regards
ミハウ “𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓪86” ナザレヴイツ
«If at first you don’t succeed, give up skydiving»

Powered by blists - more mailing lists