linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] option: Do not try to bind to ADB interfaces

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, 27 Aug 2018 18:15:52 +0200
From:   Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Romain Izard <romain.izard.pro@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Lars Melin <larsm17@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] option: Do not try to bind to ADB interfaces

Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> writes:

> It would allow for simpler device-id entries, at least when ADB is the
> only blacklisted interface, and may enable ADB for some older entries.
>
> On the other hand, interface class 0xff is indeed supposed to be vendor
> specific as Lars and Greg pointed out, and with status quo we don't
> cause any regressions. If ADB isn't currently available for some device
> due to option binding to that interface, we'll just blacklist it as soon
> we get a report.
>
> So personally I'm not sure it's worth it, but I don't have a strong
> opinion on the matter either.

+1

The adb userspace application is also free to unbind any conflicting
driver, so I don't think blacklisting is strictly necessary.  Except to
prevent any confusion caused by bogus ttyUSBx devices.


Bjørn