linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: option: adding support for YUGA CLM920-NC5

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: <878tdzb5xi.fsf@miraculix.mork.no>
Date:   Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:14:17 +0100
From:   Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
To:     SZ Lin (林上智) <SZ.Lin@...a.com>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Taiyi TY Wu (吳泰毅) 
        <TaiyiTY.Wu@...a.com>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-usb\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: option: adding support for YUGA CLM920-NC5

"SZ Lin (林上智)" <SZ.Lin@...a.com> writes:
>> Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> writes:
>> 
>> >> +static const struct option_blacklist_info yuga_clm920_nc5_blacklist = {
>> >> +	.reserved = BIT(0) | BIT(1) | BIT(4), };
>> >
>> > Do you really need to blacklist the first interface?
>> 
>> Good question. Interface #0 does look a lot like a Qualcomm DM/DIAG function, based
>> on two bulk endpoints, no additional descriptors and the fact that it is the first interface.
>> If so, then we do want a serial driver for it.  There is a basic libqcdm implementation in
>> ModemManager if you want to test it out.
>> 
>
> I have confirmed that interface #0 is QCDM/DIAG port in this module,
>and thus I will remove this from reserved list in next patch.
>Furthermore, interface #1 is ADB port. Should I also remove this from
>reserved list?

No. ADB is handled by userspace tools using libusb.  It should not be
bound to any serial driver, so you will need to blacklist it.  But you
need to keep the blacklist anyway to include the QCDM/DIAG port

I assume Johan's alternative was to match class/subclass/protocol
against ff/00/00, which would have worked if you only wanted to include
interfaces 2 and 3.

>> And I expect interface #4 is QMI/rmnet?  Feel free to confirm that assumption with a
>> patch against qmi_wwan :-)
>> 
> Yes, it is. I will send qmi_wwan patch by all means.

Thanks


Bjørn