linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: add quirks for Lenovo OneLink+ Dock

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:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 16:47:29 +0200
From:   Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To:     jflf_kernel@....com, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: add quirks for Lenovo OneLink+ Dock

On 30.08.22 15:56, jflf_kernel@....com wrote:

Hi,

> I agree that USB_QUIRK_RESET_RESUME seems fishy with a hub. It's pretty much the last quirk I tried, and the only one that worked. I can't say I understand what it does exactly.

Two things

1) force a reset after a resume and call reset_resume() instead of resume()
2) block autosuspend if remote wakeup is required

I suspect you are actually using the second effect. Have you
tested with "usbcore.autosuspend=-1" on the kernel command line.

 The hubs themselves don't seem to reset (or at least not fully), as
there is no re-enumeration of existing children.

Probably because they do not suspend at all. Generally hubs do need
remote wakeup lest they forget the port whose activity woke the system.

> I have not experienced a single problem or side effect since using those quirks. I use a mix of USB 2.0 and 3.0 devices, some bus- and some self-powered, some permanently connected (including ethernet and audio in the hub itself) and some not.

The interesting test would be to see whether a keyboard, ethernet
or mouse can wake your system from suspend. Have you tested WOL?

	Regards
		Oliver