linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v3] r8152: check the informaton of the device

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: <YKtuRmp6mC34kf2k@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 May 2021 11:13:42 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
Cc:     "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        nic_swsd <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "syzbot+95afd23673f5dd295c57@...kaller.appspotmail.com" 
        <syzbot+95afd23673f5dd295c57@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] r8152: check the informaton of the device

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 08:54:50AM +0000, Hayes Wang wrote:
> Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
> > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 4:01 PM
> [...]
> > >  	/* The vendor mode is not always config #1, so to find it out. */
> > >  	udev = interface_to_usbdev(intf);
> > >  	c = udev->config;
> > >  	num_configs = udev->descriptor.bNumConfigurations;
> > > +	if (num_configs < 2)
> > > +		return false;
> > > +
> > 
> > Nit: This check looks unnecessary also as the driver can handle a single
> > configuration just fine, and by removing it you'd be logging "Unexpected
> > Device\n" below also in the single config case.
> 
> I just want to distinguish the devices.
> It is acceptable if the device contains only one configuration.
> A mistake occurs if the device has more configurations and
> there is no expected one.
> I would remove it if you think it is better.

I'm fine with keeping the check too (e.g. as an optimisation of sort),
it's just a bit inconsistent to not log an error in that one error path.

Johan