[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51926ee6-ee81-4543-a1f7-338e65a26670@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:10:01 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Dingyan Li <18500469033@....com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Xiaofan Chen <xiaofanc@...il.com>,
Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
Tormod Volden <lists.tormod@...il.com>,
sebastian.reichel@...labora.com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] USB: add usbfs ioctl to get specific superspeedplus
rates
On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 02:13:33PM +0800, Dingyan Li wrote:
>
> At 2023-07-26 22:39:32, "Hans de Goede" <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
> >Right, so the reason why IOCTL USBDEVFS_GET_SPEED was added is so
> >that a confined qemu process which gets just a fd for a /dev/bus/usb/
> >device passed by a more privileged process can still get the speed
> >despite it not having sysfs access. This is necessary for correct
> >pass-through of USB devices.
> >
> >Since USBDEVFS_GET_SPEED now no longer tells the full story I believe
> >that the proposed USBDEVFS_GET_SSP_RATE ioctl makes sense.
> >
> >The current patch however misses moving the enum usb_ssp_rate
> >declaration from include/linux/usb/ch9.h to
> >include/uapi/linux/usb/ch9.h so that needs to be fixed in a version
> >2. Assuming that with the above explanation of why this is necessary
> >Greg and Alan are ok with adding the ioctl.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Hans
> >
>
> Hi Greg and Alan,
>
> Could you please share your opinions about Hans' justification?
Instead of adding a new ioctl or modifying an existing one, how about
increasing the set of constants in enum usb_device_speed? Then the
existing ioctls could return the newly defined values when appropriate,
with no other changes necessary.
(This doesn't mean just moving the definition of usb_ssp_rate from one
header file to the other. The usb_device_speed enumeration should be
extended with the new members. Perhaps omitting USB_SSP_GEN_UNKNOWN
since we already have USB_SPEED_SUPER_PLUS, or setting the first equal
to the second.)
I don't think there was ever a requirement in the API that the set of
values in usb_device_speed could never increase (and in fact it has
increased in the past). Such a requirement wouldn't make any sense,
given how the USB-IF keeps defining newer and faster USB bus
implementations.
Hans, would that play well with libusb?
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists