linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] add xhci hooks for USB offload

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]

Message-ID: <YBAk795ccXBPgJWp@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 15:19:27 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Howard Yen <howardyen@...gle.com>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] add xhci hooks for USB offload

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:32:58PM +0200, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> On 20.1.2021 12.04, Howard Yen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:47 PM Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19.1.2021 12.10, Howard Yen wrote:
> >>> To let the xhci driver support USB offload, add hooks for vendor to have
> >>> customized behavior for the initialization, memory allocation, irq work, and
> >>> device context synchronization. Detail is in each patch commit message.
> >>
> >> Is this related to the usb audio sideband capability that was added to the xHCI specification?
> >> If yes, then we should probably implement the generic parts first, and then add
> >> the vendor specific hooks.
> >>
> >> -Mathias
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > This is for offloading, no matter what type of offloading.
> > I made the hooks generically and can be used for usb audio on the xhci
> > which is not including the usb audio sideband capability.
> > 
> 
> Ok, before adding hooks like this I think we need to see how they are used.
> Do you have the rest of the patches that go on top of this series?
> 
> Maybe it could make sense to use overrides for the functions in struct hc_driver
> instead in some cases? There is support for that already.

What overrides could be done for these changes?  At first glance that
would seem to require a lot of duplicated code in whatever override
happens to be needed.

thanks,

greg k-h