linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb-storage: Optimize scan delay more precisely

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: <a446cdf4-3a9b-43d8-b22b-78c20cce2b4f@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:10:25 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Norihiko Hama <norihiko.hama@...salpine.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
  "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
  "usb-storage@...ts.one-eyed-alien.net" <usb-storage@...ts.one-eyed-alien.net>,
  "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb-storage: Optimize scan delay more precisely

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 07:39:55AM +0000, Norihiko Hama wrote:
> > Sorry, but module parameters are from the 1990's, we will not go back to that if at all possible as it's not easy to maintain and will not work properly for multiple devices.
> >
> > I can understand wanting something between 1 and 0 seconds, but adding yet-another-option isn't probably the best way, sorry.
> 1 second does not meet with performance requirement.
> I have no good idea except module parameter so that we can maintain backward compatibility but be configurable out of module.
> Do you have any other better solution?

Can you accomplish what you want with a quirk flag?

Alan Stern