linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb-core: Add MS_INTR

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]

Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:38:22 -0400
From:   Dave Mielke <dave@...lke.cc>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kevin.derome@...tech.eu,
        clause.andreabush@...il.com, mengualjeanphi@...e.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb-core: Add MS_INTR_BINTERVAL USB quirk

[quoted lines by Alan Stern on 2017/03/12 at 21:40 -0400]

>No, I was wondering why an HID device would run at high speed.  Both
>you and Samuel implied that this was because it was a USB-2 device.  
>But that is not an adequate answer, because it is perfectly valid for a 
>USB-2 device to run at full speed.

I think I've misunderstood something about how to interpret bInterval. I'm now 
suspecting that bInterval must be interpreted the new (mocro frame) way only if 
the device is operating at least at high speed, and that, even if the device 
advertizes itself as USB 2.0, bInterval must still be interpreted the old way 
if the device is operating at full or low speed. Is that correct?

If the above is correct, how can we tell from usbfs which way to interpret 
bInterval?

-- 
Dave Mielke           | 2213 Fox Crescent | The Bible is the very Word of God.
Phone: 1-613-726-0014 | Ottawa, Ontario   | http://Mielke.cc/bible/
EMail: Dave@...lke.cc | Canada  K2A 1H7   | http://FamilyRadio.org/