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=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 03FC5C433E7 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 08:14:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22CE207E8 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 08:14:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1602317665; bh=UPcr+Ibg07POMWxl1HvL2IeGuaIGl6soETIqzkJhXjA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=F+2ZeCG3Fg2uv2aVl2E9uL+qfQUON2W9Vbrf4Upj8ZWdcN4gZk5pWU2FrNOvD/kAv B8l/scnmUnb2j0znsUwguio/q+Qy2boUoQJoGC4Q8hXYCwYFbM3bcJbBLAEee/AKHw 4w73P66eTEzF8eGEGLzsodFUhTV+Pi4WibdI+hSY= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729884AbgJJINn (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Oct 2020 04:13:43 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:37276 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729820AbgJJIJH (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Oct 2020 04:09:07 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-74-64.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.74.64]) (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 3C808207E8; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 08:09:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1602317346; bh=UPcr+Ibg07POMWxl1HvL2IeGuaIGl6soETIqzkJhXjA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=HMwOBN4IbvGaEGnave/74riINOP0cR6MsHA3Ytl9Ej1+bHp3WLTtGXHkTC/T6Ur/h vsuKBIZ6Oo94MAOIGD0BdsudPZN58FgsJUf/zRySLGmTEnhz+mI1rO8cz0lbnaKTYL A6MjC3dIF2CncvSx0CKawexv5Z4LWXzbsIhRFvkM= Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 10:09:04 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Anant Thazhemadam Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, syzbot+009f546aa1370056b1c2@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, Ian Abbott , linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: comedi: check validity of wMaxPacketSize of usb endpoints found Message-ID: <20201010080904.GA140279@kroah.com> References: <20201009162030.293781-1-anant.thazhemadam@gmail.com> <20201010070007.GB132110@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 07:29:13AM +0530, Anant Thazhemadam wrote: > Hi, > > On 10-10-2020 12:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 09:50:29PM +0530, Anant Thazhemadam wrote: > >> While finding usb endpoints in vmk80xx_find_usb_endpoints(), check if > >> wMaxPacketSize = 0 for the endpoints found. > >> > >> Some devices have isochronous endpoints that have wMaxPacketSize = 0 > >> (as required by the USB-2 spec). > >> However, since this doesn't apply here, wMaxPacketSize = 0 can be > >> considered to be invalid. > >> > >> Reported-by: syzbot+009f546aa1370056b1c2@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > >> Tested-by: syzbot+009f546aa1370056b1c2@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > >> Signed-off-by: Anant Thazhemadam > >> --- > > You sent 2 patches with the same subject, which one is the "latest" one? > > This patch (that you have replied to) is the "latest" one. > > > Please always version your patches and put below the --- line what > > changed from the previous version, so that maintainers have a chance to > > know which to accept... > > The other patch (with the same subject line) wasn't supposed to be sent out. > I realized there was a coding style error in that while sending, and cancelled > sending it, but it got sent nonetheless. > I would have included a v2 tag in this patch itself, but I didn't realize that the > previous one got sent until afterwards. :( > I'm sorry for that. > > > Can you fix this up and send a v3? > > Shouldn't I resend this patch as a v2 instead? Since there wouldn't be any > changes from v2 (this patch) to v3 otherwise (unless of course, somebody could > suggest some more changes that could be made to this patch itself). The change would be that you are correctly listing the version information, so it would be v3 :) thanks, greg k-h