linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/2] f_fs: better handle excess data on read

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 21 May 2016 20:47:33 +0200
From:	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
To:	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Du, Changbin" <changbin.du@...el.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, rui.silva@...aro.org,
	k.opasiak@...sung.com, lars@...afoo.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] f_fs: better handle excess data on read

Between this set and Du, Changbin’s patch, we now have implementation
for the following three possibilities to choose from:
1. Buffer excess data (this whole patch set).
2. Fail the transfer (Du, Changbin’s patch).
3. Drop excess data (the first patch from this set).

As per earlier comments, I think 3. is the correct, i.e. the second
patch should not be ocmmited because:
* it complicates the code,
* doesn’t handle AIO anyway,
* introduces weird behaviours when partial read happens just before
  endpoint is disabled (we may end up silently dropping excess data
  anyway),
* goes beyond what UDC does and
* breaks one read -> one request model which has been true so far.

Michal Nazarewicz (2):
  usb: gadget: f_fs: printk error when excess data is dropped on read
  usb: gadget: f_fs: buffer data from ‘oversized’ OUT requests

 drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c | 179 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 145 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)

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