netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 05/10] lan78xx: Disable USB3 link power state transitions

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: <02d701d798f5$04a23df0$0de6b9d0$@pebblebay.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Aug 2021 15:33:13 +0100
From:   "John Efstathiades" <john.efstathiades@...blebay.com>
To:     "'Jakub Kicinski'" <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 05/10] lan78xx: Disable USB3 link power state transitions

> Do you expect the device-initiated transitions to always be causing
> trouble or are there scenarios where they are useful?

It's a particular problem on Android devices.

> Having to recompile the driver is a middle ground rarely chosen
> upstream. If the code has very low chance of being useful - let's
> remove it (git will hold it forever if needed); if there are reasonable
> chances someone will find it useful it should be configurable from user
> space, or preferably automatically enabled based on some device match
> list.

I like the sound of the device match list but I don't know what you mean.
Is there a driver or other reference you could point me at that provides
additional info?

> > > Was linux-usb consulted? Adding the list to Cc.
> >
> > No, they weren't, but the change was discussed with the driver
> maintainer at
> > Microchip.
> 
> Good to hear manufacturer is advising but the Linux USB community
> may have it's own preferences / experience.

Understood.

> > > Please split the ret code changes to a separate, earlier patch.
> >
> > There are ret code changes in later patches in this set. As a general,
> rule
> > should ret code changes be put into their own patch?
> 
> It's case by case, in this patch the ret code changes and error
> propagation does not seem to be inherently related to the main
> change the patch is making. I think you're referring to patch 7 -
> similar comment indeed applies there. I'd recommend taking the
> error propagation changes into a separate patch (can be a single
> one for code extracted from both patches).

Thanks, I am working on this and have incorporated the error propagation
changes from patch 7.