linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] usb: storage: Ignore UAS driver for SanDisk Extreme Pro 55AF storage device

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: <2025070830-edge-deprive-ce6b@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 09:32:07 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Jie Deng <dengjie03@...inos.cn>
Cc: stern@...land.harvard.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, usb-storage@...ts.one-eyed-alien.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] usb: storage: Ignore UAS driver for SanDisk Extreme
 Pro 55AF storage device

On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 05:52:31PM +0800, Jie Deng wrote:
> 
> 在 2025/7/7 16:47, Greg KH 写道:
> >   　> So ignore UAS driver for this device.
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jie Deng <dengjie03@...inos.cn>
> > > ---
> > > v2:
> > > 	* According to the file modification rules (sort by VendorID > 	
> > first, then by ProductID.) Add the newly added "UNUSUAL_DEV" > 	  in the
> > correct position.
> > > v1:
> > > 	* The newly added "UNUSUAL_DEV" was directly added to the end > 	
> > without modifying the format according to the file.
> > > > ---
> > >  drivers/usb/storage/unusual_uas.h | 7 +++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/storage/unusual_uas.h
> > b/drivers/usb/storage/unusual_uas.h
> > > index 1477e31d7763..6b1a08e2e724 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/storage/unusual_uas.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/storage/unusual_uas.h
> > > @@ -52,6 +52,13 @@ UNUSUAL_DEV(0x059f, 0x1061, 0x0000, 0x9999,
> > >  		USB_SC_DEVICE, USB_PR_DEVICE, NULL,
> > >  		US_FL_NO_REPORT_OPCODES | US_FL_NO_SAME),
> > >  > +/* Reported-by: Jie Deng <dengjie03@...inos.cn> */
> > > +UNUSUAL_DEV(0x0781, 0x55af, 0x0000, 0x9999,
> > > +		"SanDisk",
> > > +		"Extreme Pro 55AF",
> > > +		USB_SC_DEVICE, USB_PR_DEVICE, NULL,
> > > +		US_FL_IGNORE_UAS),
> > > +
> > >  /* Reported-by: Zhihong Zhou <zhouzhihong@...atwall.com.cn> */
> > >  UNUSUAL_DEV(0x0781, 0x55e8, 0x0000, 0x9999,
> > >  		"SanDisk",
> > > -- > 2.25.1
> > 
> > Why is there two "v2" patches sent here?  Shouldn't this be "v3"?
> > 
> > confused,
> > 
> > greg k-h 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　　
> > 
> The first sent V2 patch was missing the description of the
> differences between V1 and V2 patches. The V2 patch sent for
> the second time only adds a description of the differences
> from the V1 patch compared to the V2 patch sent for the first time.
> There is no modification to the code. So it is rashly believed
> that it does not need to be defined as a V3 patch.
> 

Think about what you would do if you got sent 2 "v2" patches?  :)

Remember, some of us get hundreds/thousands of emails to handle a day,
please make it very obvious what to do here.

thanks,

greg k-h