linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "Bluetooth: btusb: fix QCA Rome suspend/resume"

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: <CA+ASDXPnSqm4qswPBtfd_yKvaXV1+Vd-SsGe+2=dL-wKTzRuAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 09:31:43 -0800
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>
Cc:     Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Linux USB Mailing List <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Bluetooth mailing list 
        <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Leif Liddy <leif.linux@...il.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "Bluetooth: btusb: fix QCA Rome suspend/resume"

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 07:00:07PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
>> > This commit causes a regression on some QCA ROME chips. The USB device
>> > reset happens in btusb_open(), hence firmware loading gets interrupted.
>>
>> Oh, did you really confirm that's the root of the problem? I was only
>> hypothesizing, with some informed observation and code review; but I
>> didn't fully convince myself. If so, that's interesting.
>
> I have the same doubt. Can you explain how/why firmware uploading and
> btusb_open() overlap, and how this is avoided with your patch?
> If they do overlap, is that not a bug in the stack that should be fixed instead?
> If the fix belongs in btusb and this BTUSB_RESET_RESUME thing really
> is problematic, should it be totally removed instead?

To be clear: this is a regression in mainline and should definitely be
fixed by reverting it. The path forward for patch 2/2 should be
determined by a better understanding of where the real problem is.

Brian