From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9256CC433E1 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:44:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6106D20578 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:44:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1598366679; bh=H4ZjIEM1FoCEKtZPFYTxt0y4DJtVqeusqC+bdNjG5Gw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=UwI3neoiOW9++LYLPbXUMyNexKZM4hD7XJwp78WtyG8mLqQySxalpnZAbDoWHn1cF bcvrCYnGUSkF+h3rvtJIm407Sdonmj8mJ4mPw88rfMnPflylDRetixj3LfhGNImfNT kRK9p+DTGdhX64v354uvhqcHbJfmH0zSaaRcqA+s= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726570AbgHYOoX (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 10:44:23 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:55986 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725893AbgHYOoW (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 10:44:22 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4264820578; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:44:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1598366661; bh=H4ZjIEM1FoCEKtZPFYTxt0y4DJtVqeusqC+bdNjG5Gw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=MVfNwM2xGfolB0ytEUD3umzKOJXUzM3sBZS523JV7zuqDlg0+rDnIVKRh3e5nGhnU R/lDxscVLLMMygvwAO8Tf1+7GcZ+zL3BpmiU4hlppToOx0q22P79AzMZjRe8cqNtB2 D/IoM4cZLKEnUQIOYHIoBuw2b5VEISrn6Y35sEYg= Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:44:37 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Alan Stern Cc: Dmitry Vyukov , Himadri Pandya , David Miller , Jakub Kicinski , linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, USB list , netdev , LKML , syzkaller-bugs Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: usb: Fix uninit-was-stored issue in asix_read_cmd() Message-ID: <20200825144437.GA1484901@kroah.com> References: <20200823082042.20816-1-himadrispandya@gmail.com> <20200823101924.GA3078429@kroah.com> <20200823105808.GB87391@kroah.com> <20200825065135.GA1316856@kroah.com> <20200825143946.GA365901@rowland.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200825143946.GA365901@rowland.harvard.edu> Sender: linux-usb-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:39:46AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:51:35AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > At first glance, I think this can all be cleaned up, but it will take a > > bit of tree-wide work. I agree, we need a "read this message and error > > if the whole thing is not there", as well as a "send this message and > > error if the whole thing was not sent", and also a way to handle > > stack-provided data, which seems to be the primary reason subsystems > > wrap this call (they want to make it easier on their drivers to use it.) > > > > Let me think about this in more detail, but maybe something like: > > usb_control_msg_read() > > usb_control_msg_send() > > is a good first step (as the caller knows this) and stack provided data > > would be allowed, and it would return an error if the whole message was > > not read/sent properly. That way we can start converting everything > > over to a sane, and checkable, api and remove a bunch of wrapper > > functions as well. > > Suggestion: _read and _send are not a natural pair. Consider instead > _read and _write. _recv and _send don't feel right either, because it > both cases the host sends the control message -- the difference lies > in who sends the data. Yes, naming is hard :) usb_control_read_msg() usb_control_write_msg() feels good to me, let me try this out and see if it actually makes sense to do this on a few in-usb-core files and various drivers... thanks, greg k-h