linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] USB: cdc-acm: fix TIOCGSERIAL implementation

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: <61df47f6708fc4bc9add8d42aff6edcbad6e9618.camel@suse.com>
Date:   Thu, 08 Apr 2021 13:59:43 +0200
From:   Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] USB: cdc-acm: fix TIOCGSERIAL implementation

Am Donnerstag, den 08.04.2021, 13:54 +0200 schrieb Johan Hovold:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 01:34:12PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 08.04.2021, 11:48 +0200 schrieb Johan Hovold:
> > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > Am Mittwoch, den 07.04.2021, 12:28 +0200 schrieb Johan Hovold:
> > > > Well, the devices report it. It is part of the standard.
> > > 
> > > No, the standard doesn't include anything about a baud-base clock
> > > AFAICT.
> > 
> > Unfortunately it does.
> > dwDTERate - chapter 6.3.11 - table 17
> 
> That's not the base clock rate, that's just the currently configured
> line speed which you can read from termios 
> > If we does this wrongly, we should certainly fix it, but just removing
> > the reporting doesn't look right to me.
> 
> The driver got its interpretation of baud_base wrong, and CDC doesn't
> even have a concept of base clock rate so removing it is the right thing
> to do.
> 
> Again, baud_base is really only relevant with legacy UARTs and when
> using the deprecated ASYNC_SPD_CUST.
> 
> And if the user wants to knows the current line speed we have a
> different interface for that.

Hi,

thank you, that clarifies things. I am happy with the patch itself,
but could I ask you to do two things:

1. Edit the commit description
making clear that the difference
between the base clock rate and the line speed.

2. Mark the patch specially to NOT be included in stable. We may
have
users misusing the current API.

	Regards
		Oliver