linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: f_sourcesink: Fix isoc transfer for USB_SPEED_SUPER

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, 22 Jan 2022 08:24:48 +0530
From:   Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC:     Pavankumar Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: f_sourcesink: Fix isoc transfer for
 USB_SPEED_SUPER_PLUS

Hi Alan,

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 10:09:00AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 05:01:24PM +0530, Pavankumar Kondeti wrote:
> > Currently when gadget enumerates in super speed plus, the isoc
> > endpoint request buffer size is not calculated correctly. Fix
> > this by checking the gadget speed against USB_SPEED_SUPER_PLUS
> > and update the request buffer size.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Pavankumar Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_sourcesink.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_sourcesink.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_sourcesink.c
> > index 1abf08e..0a423ba 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_sourcesink.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_sourcesink.c
> > @@ -584,6 +584,8 @@ static int source_sink_start_ep(struct f_sourcesink *ss, bool is_in,
> >  
> >  	if (is_iso) {
> >  		switch (speed) {
> > +		case USB_SPEED_SUPER_PLUS:
> > +			fallthrough;
> 
> There's no need for this "fallthough" line.  You're allowed to have 
> multiple case labels for a single block of code.
> 
Thanks for the review. I will incorporate your suggestion in v2.

Thanks,
Pavan