linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] usb: typec: ucsi: revert broken buffer management

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: <9f5fd0d3-feac-4b43-ad3b-87cee7fa1f9b@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 12:21:28 -0800
From: "Katiyar, Pooja" <pooja.katiyar@...ux.intel.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
 Pooja Katiyar <pooja.katiyar@...el.com>,
 Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>,
 linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] usb: typec: ucsi: revert broken buffer management

Hello Johan and Greg,

On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 06:24:24AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 03:04:49PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 02:15:10PM -0800, Katiyar, Pooja wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 07:22:00AM -0800, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>>> The new buffer management code has not been tested or reviewed properly
>>>> and breaks boot of machines like the Lenovo ThinkPad X13s.
>>>>
>>>> Fixing this will require designing a proper interface for managing these
>>>> transactions, something which most likely involves reverting most of the
>>>> offending commit anyway.
>>>> 	    
>>>> Revert the broken code to fix the regression and let Intel come up with
>>>> a properly tested implementation for a later kernel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks! A fix patch addressing the race condition has been identified and
>>> is being tested right now. It will be submitted for review shortly.
>>>
>>> Here’s the discussion on same - 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/349e1f70-7e40-4e3e-b078-6e001bbb5f1a@oss.qualcomm.com/
>>
>> Yes, I'm aware that discussion and I still think this needs to be
>> reverted. Then you can propose a redesigned and tested implementation
>> that we can help you review as that kind of work is not something that
>> should be done as part of rc stabilisation.
> 
> I agree, I don't see a submitted patch yet so I'll go take your reverts
> at this point in time.  That way people have more time to get this
> correct instead of being rushed this time of the year.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 
Thank you for your feedback! We will work on a redesign for clearer implementation.

Regards,
Pooja