Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200909193419.2006744-1-james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
 <1599706954.10822.3.camel@suse.de> <a1161f77-5b37-39ea-eb91-7b0b59278960@gmail.com>
 <20200910080850.GD24441@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20200910080850.GD24441@localhost>
From:   James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Sep 2020 02:17:44 -0600
Message-ID: <CADvTj4rDdj8KtLhGZEZP+XZcF4DTE4oW9sNf=zNWaRPzkny93A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] usb: serial: Repair FTDI FT232R bricked eeprom
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Cc:     Lars Melin <larsm17@gmail.com>, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.de>,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@gmail.com>,
        Hector Martin <hector@marcansoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:08 AM Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:33:55PM +0700, Lars Melin wrote:
> > On 9/10/2020 10:02, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2020, 13:34 -0600 schrieb James Hilliard:
> > >> This patch detects and reverses the effects of the malicious FTDI
> > >> Windows driver version 2.12.00(FTDIgate).
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > this raises questions.
> > > Should we do this unconditionally without asking?
> > > Does this belong into kernel space?
> > >
> >
> > My answer to both of those question is a strong NO.
> >
> > The patch author tries to justify the patch with egoistical arguments
> > (easier for him and his customers) without thinking of all other users
> > of memory constrained embedded hardware that doesn't need the patch code
> > but have to carry it.
> >
> > The bricked PID is btw already supported by the linux ftdi driver so
> > there is no functionality gain in the patch.
>
> I fully agree. This doesn't belong in the kernel. If the Windows driver
> breaks someones device on purpose they should know about it, and *if*
> they want they can reprogram the device using the tools mentioned in the
> thread. But the kernel shouldn't be playing such games and reprogram
> eeproms behind people's backs.
One of the main issues is that this issue is very often not-obvious, FTDI
specifically designed their malicious driver to make it appear that the
hardware failed, they intentionally do not provide proper feedback to
the user when they soft-brick it. I assume this is because they want
to push the support costs related to their malicious driver onto the
integrator rather than themselves.
>
> Johan