linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 1/3 v1] ALSA: usb-audio: more tolerant packetsize

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: <s5hy40010w5.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date:   Thu, 01 Dec 2016 09:58:34 +0100
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>
Cc:     Jiada Wang <jiada_wang@...tor.com>, apape@...adit-jv.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        Mark_Craske@...tor.com
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 1/3 v1] ALSA: usb-audio: more tolerant packetsize

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 08:41:17 +0100,
Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> 
> Jiada Wang wrote:
> > since commit 57e6dae1087bbaa6b33d3dd8a8e90b63888939a3 the expected packetsize is always limited to
> > nominal + 25%. It was discovered, that some devices
> 
> Which devices?
> 
> > have a much higher jitter in used packetsizes than 25%
> 
> How high?  (Please note that the USB specification restricts the jitter
> to at most one frame in consecutive packets.)
> 
> > which would result in BABBLE condition and dropping of packets.
> > A better solution is so assume the jitter to be the nominal packetsize
> 
> This solution is better for this one particular device, but how does it
> affect normal devices, or the Scarlett 2i4 on EHCI affected?

Actually, which value does this affected device in ep->maxpacksize?
In the commit mentioned above, we changed the logic to take +25%
frequency as the basis, and it my *reduce* if ep->maxpacksize is lower
than that.

OTOH, if ep->maxpacksize is sane, we can rely on it rather than the
implicit +25% frequency.  That said, maybe we can check
ep->maxpacksize whether it fits within the expected range, then adapt
it, or take +25% freq as fallback?


thanks,

Takashi