Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] usb: gadget: add mechanism to asynchronously validate data stage of ctrl out request

[Paul Elder]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:39:25PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Paul Elder wrote:
> 
> > This patch series adds a mechanism to allow asynchronously validating
> > the data stage of a control OUT request, and for stalling or suceeding
> > the request accordingly.
> 
> One thing we haven't mentioned explicitly: What should happen when the 
> time for the status stage rolls around if the gadget driver queues a 
> non-zero length request?

Ah, yeah, I missed that.

> This can happen in a few different ways.  One obvious possibility is
> that the gadget driver sets the explicit_status flag and then submits a
> non-zero length request.  Another is that the gadget driver submits
> _two_ requests during the data stage (the second would be interpreted
> as the status-stage request).  A third is that the gadget driver
> submits a data-stage request that is too long and the excess portion is
> used for the status stage.
> 
> My feeling is that the behavior in these cases should officially be
> undefined.  Almost anything could happen: the status stage could STALL,
> it could succeed, it could NAK, or it could send a non-zero packet to
> the host.  The request could return with 0 status or an error status,
> and req->actual could take on any reasonable value.
> 
> Alternatively, the UDC driver could detect these errors and report them 
> somehow.  Maybe STALL the status stage and complete the request with 
> -EPIPE status or some such thing.
> 
> Any preferences or other ideas?

I think error detection and reporting would be useful. The question is
what action to take after that; either leave it undefined or STALL. I
think STALL would be fine, since if a non-zero length request is
submitted for a status stage, intentionally or not, it isn't part of
proper behavior and should count as an error.

> One other thing: Some UDC drivers may assume that the data stage of a 
> control transfer never spans more than a single usb_request.  Should 
> this become an official requirement?

Would the data stage of a control transfer ever need more space than a
single usb_request can contain? I know UVC doesn't; that's why we pack
it together with the setup stage data in 3/6. If so, I would think we
can make it a requirement.


Paul