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]

Message-ID: <Yw8OU8hYZuuBgrnj@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 09:31:31 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     jflf_kernel@....com
Cc:     Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: add quirks for Lenovo OneLink+ Dock

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:50:03PM +0200, jflf_kernel@....com wrote:
> 
> On 30/08/2022 16.47, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> After further testing, your suspicion is correct.
> 
> TL;DR: the two VL812 hubs don't behave well when suspended.
> 
> I'd like to prepare a better patch for that issue. What's the recommended strategy? The current patch works, even if only as a side effect and when there's a wakeup source downstream. It's currently in Greg KH's usb-linus branch, and will land in linux-next at some point. I'm tempted to let it be and undo it later in the better patch. Is that acceptable? Or should I ask Greg KH to pull it?

I can revert it if you want me to, just let me know.

thanks,

greg k-h