linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: eem: fix command packet transfer issue

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YMG2UWeqodfTRRnQ@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2021 08:50:57 +0200
From:   'Greg Kroah-Hartman' <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linyyuan@...eaurora.org
Cc:     'Felipe Balbi' <balbi@...nel.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: eem: fix command packet transfer issue

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 02:10:40PM +0800, linyyuan@...eaurora.org wrote:
> From: Linyu Yuan <linyyuan@...eaurora.com>
> 
> there is following warning,
> [<ffffff8008905a94>] dwc3_gadget_ep_queue+0x1b4/0x1c8
> [<ffffff800895ec9c>] usb_ep_queue+0x3c/0x120
> [<ffffff80089677a0>] eem_unwrap+0x180/0x330
> [<ffffff80089634f8>] rx_complete+0x70/0x230
> [<ffffff800895edbc>] usb_gadget_giveback_request+0x3c/0xe8
> [<ffffff8008901e7c>] dwc3_gadget_giveback+0xb4/0x190
> [<ffffff8008905254>] dwc3_endpoint_transfer_complete+0x32c/0x410
> [<ffffff80089060fc>] dwc3_bh_work+0x654/0x12e8
> [<ffffff80080c63fc>] process_one_work+0x1d4/0x4a8
> [<ffffff80080c6720>] worker_thread+0x50/0x4a8
> [<ffffff80080cc8e8>] kthread+0xe8/0x100
> [<ffffff8008083980>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x50
> request ffffffc0716bf200 belongs to 'ep0out'
> 
> when gadget receive a eem command packet from host, it need to response,
> but queue usb request to wrong endpoint.

What is the full warning here?  THe above traceback is a bit odd and
does not show what is happening.

> fix it by queue usb request to eem IN endpoint and allow host read it.

I do not understand how this matches up with your kernel patch, when you
resend this, can you please expand on this and make it more obvious what
you are doing here?

thanks,

greg k-h