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: <2024032745-transfer-dazzler-2e15@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:44:49 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Norihiko Hama <norihiko.hama@...salpine.com>
Cc: "stern@...land.harvard.edu" <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	"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.

Who is requiring such a performance requirement?  The USB specification?
Or something else?

> 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?

How long do you exactly need to wait?  Why not figure out how long the
device takes and if it fails, slowly back off until the full time delay
happens and then you can abort?

thanks,

greg k-h