From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Michal Pecio <michal.pecio@gmail.com>
Cc: "Johannes Brüderl" <johannes.bruederl@gmail.com>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: core: add USB_QUIRK_NO_BOS for devices that hang on BOS descriptor
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2025 09:59:40 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2025120714-jingle-prorate-5435@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251207013734.4e99331f.michal.pecio@gmail.com>
On Sun, Dec 07, 2025 at 01:37:34AM +0100, Michal Pecio wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 01:00:07 +0100, Johannes Brüderl wrote:
> > Add USB_QUIRK_NO_BOS quirk flag to skip requesting the BOS descriptor
> > for devices that cannot handle it.
> >
> > Add Elgato 4K X (0fd9:009b) to the quirk table. This device hangs when
> > the BOS descriptor is requested at SuperSpeed Plus (10Gbps).
> >
> > Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=220027
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Brüderl <johannes.bruederl@gmail.com>
>
> IIRC what we found in this bug is that the device will happily respond
> to BOS descriptor requests issued by lsusb after it's enumerated.
That's very odd.
> So it appears that (only when running at 10G, wtf) the device expects
> something to happen before it is able to produce this descriptor. And
> apparently Linux is doing things in different order than certain other
> operating system supported by the vendor.
Any ideas what "order" is not the same here? Should we just not be
reading the BOS descriptor at early enumeration and just wait until
someone actually wants it?
> But the reporter simply applied a patch similar to yours and lost
> interest in debugging any further.
Understood, but I'd like to get to the root of this if possible so that
we don't end up just adding a bunch of devices to this quirk because we
are doing something "odd" that normal USB-IF testing isn't catching.
That feels like a bad overall decision to make.
> And unfortunately WinPCAP fails to capture most of enumeration process,
> so I don't know how that other software is doing it.
usbmon with windows in a virtual machine might catch this?
thanks,
greg k-h
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-07 0:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-07 0:00 [PATCH] usb: core: add USB_QUIRK_NO_BOS for devices that hang on BOS descriptor Johannes Brüderl
2025-12-07 0:15 ` Greg KH
2025-12-07 1:20 ` [PATCH v2] " Johannes Brüderl
2025-12-07 6:19 ` Lars Melin
2025-12-07 9:02 ` [PATCH v3 1/1] " Johannes Brüderl
2026-01-07 16:06 ` Greg KH
2025-12-07 7:40 ` [PATCH v2] " Michal Pecio
2025-12-07 9:22 ` Johannes Brüderl
2025-12-07 9:45 ` Michal Pecio
2025-12-07 10:47 ` Johannes Brüderl
2025-12-07 11:00 ` Greg KH
2025-12-07 21:12 ` Greg KH
2025-12-07 22:06 ` Michal Pecio
2025-12-08 8:58 ` Oliver Neukum
2025-12-08 20:46 ` Greg KH
2025-12-28 12:54 ` Johannes Brüderl
2025-12-28 13:18 ` Greg KH
2025-12-07 0:37 ` [PATCH] " Michal Pecio
2025-12-07 0:59 ` Greg KH [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2025120714-jingle-prorate-5435@gregkh \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=johannes.bruederl@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.pecio@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox