linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: comedi: check validity of wMaxPacketSize of usb endpoints found

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:   Sat, 10 Oct 2020 07:29:13 +0530
From:   Anant Thazhemadam <anant.thazhemadam@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>,
        syzbot+009f546aa1370056b1c2@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: comedi: check validity of wMaxPacketSize of usb
 endpoints found

Hi,

On 10-10-2020 12:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 09:50:29PM +0530, Anant Thazhemadam wrote:
>> While finding usb endpoints in vmk80xx_find_usb_endpoints(), check if 
>> wMaxPacketSize = 0 for the endpoints found.
>>
>> Some devices have isochronous endpoints that have wMaxPacketSize = 0
>> (as required by the USB-2 spec).
>> However, since this doesn't apply here, wMaxPacketSize = 0 can be
>> considered to be invalid.
>>
>> Reported-by: syzbot+009f546aa1370056b1c2@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>> Tested-by: syzbot+009f546aa1370056b1c2@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>> Signed-off-by: Anant Thazhemadam <anant.thazhemadam@...il.com>
>> ---
> You sent 2 patches with the same subject, which one is the "latest" one?

This patch (that you have replied to) is the "latest" one.

> Please always version your patches and put below the --- line what
> changed from the previous version, so that maintainers have a chance to
> know which to accept...

The other patch (with the same subject line) wasn't supposed to be sent out.
I realized there was a coding style error in that while sending, and cancelled
sending it, but it got sent nonetheless.
I would have included a v2 tag in this patch itself, but I didn't realize that the
previous one got sent until afterwards. :(
I'm sorry for that.

> Can you fix this up and send a v3?

Shouldn't I resend this patch as a v2 instead? Since there wouldn't be any
changes from v2 (this patch) to v3 otherwise (unless of course, somebody could
suggest some more changes that could be made to this patch itself).

Thanks,
Anant