netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: cdc_ncm: workaround for missing CDC Union

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]

Date:	Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:50:39 +0100
From:	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
To:	Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
Cc:	Alexey Orishko <alexey.orishko@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, Greg Suarez <gsuarez@...thmicro.com>,
	Alexey Orishko <alexey.orishko@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: cdc_ncm: workaround for missing CDC Union

On Monday 21 January 2013 16:28:48 Bjørn Mork wrote:

> Agreed.  But I believe the condition should be 
> 
>  if (!(info->flags & FLAG_SEND_ZLP) && !(info->flags & FLAG_MULTI_PACKET)) {
>      ..
>  } else {
>      urb->transfer_flags |= URB_ZERO_PACKET;
>  }
> 
> to ensure that we send the ZLP in this case.

Why? If a driver wants ZLP, it can set FLAG_SEND_ZLP. Your proposed change
would take away an option from drivers without any gain.

> > Besides you may want the current behavior.
> 
> Why? Does it ever make sense to prevent both the short packet and the
> ZLP?

Why not? It is possible and a driver may want it, so why forbid it?
Especially, as in theory it takes least bandwidth as a solution.

	Regards
		Oliver


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html