public inbox for linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Xuetao (kirin)" <xuetao09@huawei.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<caiyadong@huawei.com>, <stable@kernel.org>,
	<stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: core: Fix bandwidth for devices with invalid wBytesPerInterval
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2026 14:59:35 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c463f9ed-22ed-4ee6-b4fa-2933770e9c4c@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2026040241-purveyor-bakery-a9f1@gregkh>



在 2026/4/2 11:51, Greg KH 写道:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2026 at 10:14:00AM +0800, Tao Xue wrote:
>> As specified in Section 4.14.2 of the xHCI Specification, the xHC
>> reserves bandwidth for periodic endpoints according to bInterval and
>> wBytesPerInterval (Max ESIT Payload).
>>
>> Some peripherals report an invalid wBytesPerInterval in their device
>> descriptor, which is either 0 or smaller than the actual data length
>> transmitted. This issue is observed on ASIX AX88179 series USB 3.0
>> Ethernet adapters.
>>
>> These errors may lead to unexpected behavior on certain USB host
>> controllers, causing USB peripherals to malfunction.
>>
>> To address the issue, return max(wBytesPerInterval, max_payload) when
>> calculating bandwidth reservation.
>>
>> Fixes: 9238f25d5d32 ("USB: xhci: properly set endpoint context fields for periodic eps.")
>> Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Tao Xue <xuetao09@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/usb/core/usb.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/usb.c b/drivers/usb/core/usb.c
>> index e9a10a33534c..8f2e05a5a015 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/core/usb.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/usb.c
>> @@ -1125,6 +1125,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(usb_free_noncoherent);
>>   u32 usb_endpoint_max_periodic_payload(struct usb_device *udev,
>>   				      const struct usb_host_endpoint *ep)
>>   {
>> +	u32 max_payload;
>> +
>>   	if (!usb_endpoint_xfer_isoc(&ep->desc) &&
>>   	    !usb_endpoint_xfer_int(&ep->desc))
>>   		return 0;
>> @@ -1135,7 +1137,12 @@ u32 usb_endpoint_max_periodic_payload(struct usb_device *udev,
>>   			return le32_to_cpu(ep->ssp_isoc_ep_comp.dwBytesPerInterval);
>>   		fallthrough;
>>   	case USB_SPEED_SUPER:
>> -		return le16_to_cpu(ep->ss_ep_comp.wBytesPerInterval);
>> +		max_payload = usb_endpoint_maxp(&ep->desc) * (ep->ss_ep_comp.bMaxBurst + 1);
>> +		if (usb_endpoint_xfer_isoc(&ep->desc))
>> +			return max_t(u32, max_payload * USB_SS_MULT(ep->ss_ep_comp.bmAttributes),
>> +					ep->ss_ep_comp.wBytesPerInterval);
>> +		else
>> +			return max_t(u32, max_payload, ep->ss_ep_comp.wBytesPerInterval);
> 
> You dropped the conversion from le16 to cpu?  Why?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Hi Greg,

Thank you for the review.

1、You're right, that was an oversight. I should keep the le16_to_cpu().
Here's the corrected version:

     max_payload = usb_endpoint_maxp(&ep->desc) * 
(ep->ss_ep_comp.bMaxBurst + 1);
     if (usb_endpoint_xfer_isoc(&ep->desc))
         return max_t(u32, max_payload * 
USB_SS_MULT(ep->ss_ep_comp.bmAttributes),
                         le16_to_cpu(ep->ss_ep_comp.wBytesPerInterval));
     else
         return max_t(u32, max_payload, 
le16_to_cpu(ep->ss_ep_comp.wBytesPerInterval));

2、Following Alan's suggestion in another email, should I check whether 
wBytesPerInterval is a valid value and handle it in the 
usb_parse_ss_endpoint_companion() ?

However, when parsing the device descriptor, we do not know whether the 
actual data length transmitted by the peripheral is greater than 
wBytesPerInterval.

Therefore, would it be sufficient to only add a check for whether 
wBytesPerInterval is 0 in the existing flow, and if it is 0, set 
wBytesPerInterval to cpu_to_le16(max_tx) by default?

For example, modify it in the following way:

      if (le16_to_cpu(desc->wBytesPerInterval) > max_tx || 
le16_to_cpu(desc->wBytesPerInterval) == 0) {
         dev_notice(ddev, "%s endpoint with wBytesPerInterval of %d in "
                 "config %d interface %d altsetting %d ep %d: "
                 "setting to %d\n",
                 usb_endpoint_xfer_isoc(&ep->desc) ? "Isoc" : "Int",
                 le16_to_cpu(desc->wBytesPerInterval),
                 cfgno, inum, asnum, ep->desc.bEndpointAddress,
                 max_tx);
         ep->ss_ep_comp.wBytesPerInterval = cpu_to_le16(max_tx);
     }

  Could you please give me some advice? Thanks.

  reply	other threads:[~2026-04-02  6:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-04-02  2:14 [PATCH] usb: core: Fix bandwidth for devices with invalid wBytesPerInterval Tao Xue
2026-04-02  2:45 ` Alan Stern
2026-04-02  3:51 ` Greg KH
2026-04-02  6:59   ` Xuetao (kirin) [this message]
2026-04-02  7:10     ` Greg KH
2026-04-02  8:26       ` Xuetao (kirin)
2026-04-02 13:56     ` Alan Stern
2026-04-02 14:09       ` Greg KH
2026-04-02 15:03         ` Michal Pecio
2026-04-03  1:20         ` Xuetao (kirin)
2026-04-02 20:17       ` Michal Pecio
2026-04-02  9:44 ` Michal Pecio
2026-04-02 11:55   ` Xuetao (kirin)
2026-04-03  7:16     ` Michal Pecio

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=c463f9ed-22ed-4ee6-b4fa-2933770e9c4c@huawei.com \
    --to=xuetao09@huawei.com \
    --cc=caiyadong@huawei.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stable@kernel.org \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /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