linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: typec: tcpm: Fix if vbus before cc, hard_reset

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:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 00:52:07 +0800
From:   Jun Li <lijun.kernel@...il.com>
To:     ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@...il.com>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux USB List <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        cy_huang <cy_huang@...htek.com>, Li Jun <jun.li@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: typec: tcpm: Fix if vbus before cc, hard_reset_count
 not reset issue

ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@...il.com> 于2020年10月6日周二 下午12:38写道：
>
> Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> 於 2020年10月5日 週一 下午11:30寫道：
> >
> > On 10/5/20 4:08 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> > >>> What ever happened with this patch, is there still disagreement?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Yes, there is. I wouldn't have added the conditional without reason,
> > >> and I am concerned that removing it entirely will open another problem.
> > >> Feel free to apply, though - I can't prove that my concern is valid,
> > >> and after all we'll get reports from the field later if it is.
> > >
> > > Ok, can I get an ack so I know who to come back to in the future if
> > > there are issues?  :)
> > >
> >
> > Not from me, for the reasons I stated. I would be ok with something like:
> >
> > -       if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port))
> > +       if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port) ||
> > +           (tcpm_cc_is_open(port->cc1) && tcpm_cc_is_open(port->cc2)))
> >
> > to narrow down the condition.
>
> I have tried the above comment and It doesn't work.
> How about to change the judgement like as below
>
> -       if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port))
> +       if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port) || !port->vbus_present)
>
> The hard_reset_count not reset issue is following by the below order
> 1. VBUS off ( at the same time, cc is still detected as attached)
> port->attached become false and cc is not open
> 2. After that, cc detached.
> due to port->attached is false, tcpm_detach() directly return.

If tcpm_detach() return directly, then how your patch can reset
hard_reset_count?

I am seeing the same issue on my platform, the proposed change:
-       if (tcpm_port_is_disconnected(port))
-               port->hard_reset_count = 0;
+       port->hard_reset_count = 0;
can't resolve it on my platform.

How about reset hard_reset_count in SNK_READY?
@@ -3325,6 +3329,7 @@ static void run_state_machine(struct tcpm_port *port)
        case SNK_READY:
                port->try_snk_count = 0;
                port->update_sink_caps = false;
+               port->hard_reset_count = 0;
                if (port->explicit_contract) {
                        typec_set_pwr_opmode(port->typec_port,
                                             TYPEC_PWR_MODE_PD);

can this resolve your problem?

Li Jun
>
> And that's why hard_reset_count is not reset to 0.
> >
> > Guenter