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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d19ad4df-8c68-4682-9580-76f9ac6a3ed2@kylinos.cn>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 11:13:17 +0800
From: Jie Deng <dengjie03@...inos.cn>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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


在 2025/7/8 15:32, Greg KH 写道:
> 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
I'm very sorry. I'll pay attention when submitting patches later