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 10:09:04 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Anant Thazhemadam <anant.thazhemadam@...il.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        syzbot+009f546aa1370056b1c2@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: comedi: check validity of wMaxPacketSize of usb
 endpoints found

On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 07:29:13AM +0530, Anant Thazhemadam wrote:
> 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).

The change would be that you are correctly listing the version
information, so it would be v3 :)

thanks,

greg k-h