linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "xhci: plat: Register shutdown for xhci

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: <663D81E0-C7F1-42BC-950C-803E508BD4ED@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:34:00 +0530
From:   Harsh Shandilya <msfjarvis@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
        Adam Wallis <awallis@...eaurora.org>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
        Badhri Jagan Sridharan <badhri@...gle.com>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "xhci: plat: Register shutdown for xhci_plat"

On 13 April 2018 11:51:28 AM IST, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 08:12:31AM +0530, Harsh Shandilya wrote:
>> On 13 April 2018 5:59:51 AM IST, Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>
>wrote:
>> >Pixel 2 field testers reported that when they tried to reboot their
>> >phones with some USB devices plugged in, the reboot would get wedged
>> >and
>> >eventually trigger watchdog reset.  Once the Pixel kernel team found
>a
>> >reliable repro case, they narrowed it down to this commit's 4.4.y
>> >backport.  Reverting the change made the issue go away.
>> 
>> Are you allowed to make the repro steps public? I'm writing this from
>> a walleye and would be grateful if I could test for this in the
>> modifed tree I'm running atm.  -- 
>
>I was told the steps are pretty simple:
>	- reboot the phone a lot
>eventually it will hang.  There's a fix in the code aurora kernel tree
>for this that they never sent upstream for some odd reason (they sent
>the first patch, why not the second?)
>
>I'll go revert this for now, thanks for the patch!
>
>greg k-h

That'd make sense, I only tried rebooting like five times before I had to run for a class.

As far as CAF is concerned, I feel the not submitting upstream, working extra to write patches which have usually better variants already upstream, seems to be common. All USB changes were dropped when they merged kernel-common into msm-3.18 with no real explanation which has been an annoyance more than once during merging -stable in my fork of msm-3.18. While I understand their situation of maintaining upwards of 5 million lines of code not upstream, it still feels sloppy to not merge stable updates and do extra work instead. /* End rant */
-- 
Harsh Shandilya, PRJKT Development LLC