linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: storage: Add ums-cros-aoa driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190902164724.GA22619@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 18:47:24 +0200
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>,
        Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        USB Storage list <usb-storage@...ts.one-eyed-alien.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: storage: Add ums-cros-aoa driver

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 01:43:36PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > I could instead add a new sysfs node 'force_bind' to the driver core,
> > that would work like 'bind' except for skipping the
> > driver_match_device() call entirely and forcing a probe(). Do you
> > think that would be acceptable? Or is that too big of a hammer to make
> > available for all drivers in Linux? Maybe if I do the same thing but
> > only for usb drivers, or even only for the usb-storage driver
> > specifically, would that be acceptable?
> 
> This is a question for Greg.  The problem is that there may be drivers
> which can't handle being probed for devices they don't match.
> 
> Still, we ought to have a mechanism for doing manual but not automatic 
> matches.
> 
> Greg, any thoughts?

This should work just fine today.  Add a new device id to the "new_id"
file and then tell the driver to bind.  That's pretty much the same as a
"force_bind", right?

thanks,

greg k-h