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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2025122344-purely-subsonic-4b97@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 15:24:24 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: "Katiyar, Pooja" <pooja.katiyar@...ux.intel.com>,
	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

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