linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: Fix Bluetooth for BCM4377 on T2 Intel MacBooks

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: <4D53181A-F6AC-4571-9E84-3B19AB37ADFE@svenpeter.dev>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:23:08 +0100
From: Sven Peter <sven@...npeter.dev>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@...e.com>,
 Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>, Felix Zhang <mrman@...an314.tech>,
 linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
 Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>, Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>,
 Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
 Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
 Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
 Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
 Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
 Orlando Chamberlain <orlandoch.dev@...il.com>, kekrby@...il.com,
 admin@...eit.net, Janne Grunau <j@...nau.net>, asahi@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: Fix Bluetooth for BCM4377 on T2 Intel MacBooks


> 
> On 4. Jan 2024, at 09:21, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 08:50:19AM +0100, Sven Peter wrote:
>>> On 4. Jan 2024, at 08:47, Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@...e.com> wrote:
>>>> On 28-Dec-2023, at 5:41 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
>>>> Ok, good, then this patch and the one I posted are mostly equivalent
>>>> assuming that the BCM4378/4387 return an invalid address during setup.
>>>> 
>>>> This patch may be preferred as it does not need to rely on such
>>>> assumptions, though.
> 
>>> So what's the final take on this? Which one is gonna be merged upstream?
>> 
>> I would’ve preferred this one (possibly with a better commit message)
>> since it’s more explicit and doesn’t rely on additional assumptions
>> but it looks like Johan’s version was already merged.
> 
> Which addresses do BCM4378/4387 return before they are configured?
> Should be easy enough to verify that the current check for invalid
> addresses catches those or otherwise add them to the list.
> 
> Johan

I think the check used to work for BRCM4378 when I originally wrote the driver but I don’t have any BRCM4387 hardware so can’t test that myself.


Sven