linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: of: filter disabled device node

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: <2025112206-handwork-hush-5886@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 13:32:24 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: jerry xzq <jerry.xzq@...il.com>
Cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	treapking@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: of: filter disabled device node

On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 07:49:02PM +0800, jerry xzq wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 7:32 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 07:25:39PM +0800, Zhengqiao Xia wrote:
> > > We should not point the of_node of a USB device to a disabled devicetree
> > > node. Otherwise, the interface under this USB device will not be able
> > > to register.
> >
> > Why would a USB device point to a disabled device tree node?  Shouldn't
> > the device tree be fixed instead?
> 
> According to your suggestion, when a USB device is directly connected
> to a USB port,
> we should delete the unused USB hub node instead of disabling it?

Why are you using device tree to describe USB devices at all?  What is
the root problem here that you are trying to solve?

The use of USB in DT should be _VERY_ limited, if at all.  You should
only do so for very good reasons in very limited situations.  If this
starts to get abused, we'll just have to rip it all out :(

thanks,

greg k-h