linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: hub: Per-port setting to use old enumeration scheme

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:   Thu, 24 May 2018 18:21:57 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
        Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
        Eugene Korenevsky <ekorenevsky@...il.com>,
        Peter Chen <peter.chen@....com>,
        Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@...data.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: hub: Per-port setting to use old enumeration scheme

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 07:42:00AM +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:03:55AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 May 2018, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> >>
> >> > The "old" enumeration scheme is considerably faster (it takes
> >> > ~294ms instead of ~439ms to get the descriptor).
> >> >
> >> > It is currently only possible to use the old scheme globally
> >> > (/sys/module/usbcore/parameters/old_scheme_first), which is not
> >> > desirable as the new scheme was introduced to increase compatibility
> >> > with more devices.
> >> >
> >> > However, in our case, we care about time-to-active for a specific
> >> > USB device (which we make the firmware for), on a specific port
> >> > (that is pogo-pin based: not a standard USB port). This new
> >> > sysfs option makes it possible to use the old scheme on a single
> >> > port only.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
> >> > ---
> >> >
> >> > There are other "quirks" that we could add to reduce further
> >> > enumeration time (e.g. reduce USB debounce time, reduce TRSTRCY
> >> > to 10ms instead of 50ms as used currently), but the logic is quite
> >> > similar, so it'd be good to have this reviewed first.
> >>
> >> I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, although I don't like your
> >> implementation because it breaks the original old_scheme_first
> >> parameter.
> 
> I don't think it breaks the original parameter? I mean,
> /sys/module/usbcore/parameters/old_scheme_first is still a global
> default, while bit 0 of /sys/bus/usb/devices/x/y/z/quirks becomes a
> port-specific override.
> 
> >> Let's see what some other people think.
> >>
> >> Yours is a rather special case, because you know exactly what device
> >> will be attached to a specific port.  Still, I can see that sort of
> >> thing happening in constrained and special-purpose settings.
> >>
> >> How do you arrange to set the new quirk before the device is
> >> discovered?
> >
> > Yeah, this last question is what I had when looking at this.  Or does it
> > not matter at first boot and only matters for wake-up?
> 
> It does not matter on boot, we have plenty of time to enumerate the
> device. We use USB (auto-)suspend and remote wake, so no
> re-enumeration there either. It only matters on unplug/replug where
> the device needs to be re-enumerated.

How does this device get unplugged/replugged if it is connected directly
to the device?

> Somewhere in an init script, we would do this (we know in advance that
> usb1 port2 is the bus/port where we have our pogo-pin USB interface,
> so we can hard-code the path):
> echo 1 > /sys/bus/usb/devices/usb1/1-0:1.0/usb1-port2/quirks
> 
> We could try to add ACPI support (just like connect_type), but we
> don't strictly need it for our application.

Isn't there an "internal" ACPI flag for USB ports, or is that
what connect_type is?  Why wouldn't that work here instead?

thanks,

greg k-h