netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] USB: serial: option: Add generic MDM9207 configurations

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Mon, 26 Dec 2022 02:08:23 +0000
From:   Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:     Lars Melin <larsm17@...il.com>
Cc:     johan@...nel.org, bjorn@...k.no, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@...ora.tech>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] USB: serial: option: Add generic MDM9207
 configurations

On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 08:23:34AM +0700, Lars Melin wrote:
> On 12/26/2022 03:52, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > +	/* Qualcomm MDM9207 - 0: DIAG, 2: AT, 3: NMEA */
> > +	{ USB_DEVICE(QUALCOMM_VENDOR_ID, 0xf601),
> > +	  .driver_info = RSVD(1) | RSVD(4) | RSVD(5) },
> > +	/* Qualcomm MDM9207 - 2: DIAG, 4: AT, 5: NMEA */
> > +	{ USB_DEVICE(QUALCOMM_VENDOR_ID, 0xf622),
> > +	  .driver_info = RSVD(0) | RSVD(1) | RSVD(3) | RSVD(6) },
> 
> Please tell what the reserved interfaces are used for and why they should be
> blacklisted.

Based on the shipped Windows Qualcomm drivers I have here, for F601 
interface 1 is bound by the qcmdm driver, interface 5 is bound by a QMI 
rmnet, and interfaces 0, 2 and 3 are bound by qcser. That leaves 
interface 4 for adb. For F622, 0 and 1 are RNDIS, 3 is the qcmdm 
interface, 2, 4 and 5 are serial, and 6 is adb. I'm not sure what qcmdm 
does. What format would you like this info in?

> The generic Qualcomm driver for 05c6:f601 (which is used by at least one
> other brand/reseller) specifies that interface#1 is for USB Modem (ppp
> dial-up).

Do you have a pointer to that driver? That seems consistent with the 
Windows drivers, but I have no experience with that.

> I assume that you posses this dongle since you add support for it so you can
> easily verify that function which I assume has not been disabled in your
> version.

Yup, I can check that once I know what it's supposed to be speaking :)