netdev - Re:Re: [PATCH] net: usb: qmi_wwan: Add support for Cinterion MV32

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: <6775a759.2696.1828bf15897.Coremail.slark_xiao@163.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Aug 2022 16:07:06 +0800 (CST)
From:   "Slark Xiao" <slark_xiao@....com>
To:     Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re:Re: [PATCH] net: usb: qmi_wwan: Add support for Cinterion MV32

















At 2022-08-10 20:35:24, "Bjørn Mork" <bjorn@...k.no> wrote:
>"Slark Xiao" <slark_xiao@....com> writes:
>> At 2022-08-10 17:28:51, "Slark Xiao" <slark_xiao@....com> wrote:
>>
>>>I have a concern, if Cinterion or other Vendors, like Quectel, use other 
>>>chip (such as intel, mediateck and so on), this methods may won't work,
>>
>> My bad. QMI_WWAN driver is designed for Qualcomm based chips only,
>>  right? 
>
>Yes, but your concern is still valid if any of them re-use ff/ff/50 for
>something which is not RMNET/QMI.  We do not want this driver to start
>matching a non-Qualcomm based device.
>
>>>because  they share a same VID. Also this may be changed once Qualcomm 
>>>update the protocol patterns for future chip.
>
>Yes, that' a risk since we have no knowledge of Qualcomm's plans or
>thoughts around this. It's all pure guesswork from my side.  But as
>such, it doesn't differ from the rest of this driver :-) Qualcomm can
>change whatever they want and we'll just have to follow up with whatever
>is required. Like what happened when raw-ip became mandatory.
>
>I do find it unlikely that Qualcomm will ever change the meaning of this
>pattern now that they've started using it.  That would not make any
>sense. If they need to create a new vendor specific function type, then
>they can just use one of the "free" protocol numbers (and also subclass
>if they run out of protocol numbers).
>
>But it's your call.  If you want to play it safe and keep the VID+PID
>matching, then I'm fine with that too.
>
>
>Bjørn

Then please help me apply it directly. There is no more commit 
request for MV32 serials if they don't update base line.

Thanks.