linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] usb: xhci: fixes lost of data for xHCI Cadence Controllers

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: <45435906-0a30-4546-a7e3-20f1f7d50713@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 11:39:30 +0300
From: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>
To: Michał Pecio <michal.pecio@...il.com>,
 pawell@...ence.com, peter.chen@...nel.org
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, mathias.nyman@...el.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] usb: xhci: fixes lost of data for xHCI Cadence
 Controllers

On 30.8.2024 18.45, Michał Pecio wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> Field Rsvd0 is reserved field, so patch should not have impact for
>> other xHCI controllers.
> Wait, is this a case of Linux failing to zero-initialize something that
> should be zero initialized before use (why not explain it as such?), or
> are you suggesting monkeying with internal xHC data at run time, in area
> which is known to actually be used by at least one implementation?
> 

Patch is monkeying with internal xHC RsvdO field.


> There is no mention of Rsvd0 in the xHCI spec, did you mean RsvdO?
> 
> Reserved and Opaque,
> For exclusive use by the xHC.
> Software shall *not* write this, unless allowed by the vendor.
> 
> Cadence isn't the only xHC vendor...
> 

Makes sense,  Pawel Laszczak, could you make this patch Cadence
specific.

Thanks
Mathias