linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: OHCI/UHCI: Add soft dependencies on ehci

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: <f5af98cd-6482-40c9-90b9-c8777d86f8ad@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2026 21:04:05 -0500
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
Cc: Diederik de Haas <diederik@...ow-tech.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Shengwen Xiao <atzlinux@...a.com>,
	linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: OHCI/UHCI: Add soft dependencies on ehci_hcd

On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 09:54:46AM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 11:00 PM Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 12:05:19PM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > > So I think we need a softdep between ohci-platform/uhci-platform and
> > > ehci-platform, which is similar to the PCI case.
> >
> > Yes, on your platform.  But not on other platforms.  (For example, not
> > on a platform that doesn't have an EHCI controller.)
> For the PCI case, OHCI without EHCI is also possible? So I think they
> are similar.

That's a good point.

> > I think the best way to do this is to create a new CONFIG_EHCI_SOFTDEPS
> > Kconfig symbol, and add the soft dependency only if the symbol is
> > defined.  Normally it will be undefined by default, but on your platform
> > (and any others that need it) you can select it.
> >
> > How does that sound?
> From my point of view, keeping it simple may be better. I think an
> unconditional softdep is harmless.

Submit your patch and let's see what Greg thinks.  You should include 
that log extract with the extra disconnect/reconnect messages in the 
patch description, to indicate clearly what you want to prevent.

Alan Stern