From: Michal Pecio <michal.pecio@gmail.com>
To: Pengfei Lv <lvpengfei20@huawei.com>
Cc: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
<linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<stable@vger.kernel.org>, <xuhaiyang5@hisilicon.com>,
<xuetao09@huawei.com>, <caiyadong@huawei.com>,
<suzhuangluan@hisilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] usb: core: hub: Re-guess ep0 maxpacket size on reset
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2026 08:17:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261106081703.295cc0a2.michal.pecio@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261106031625.1824732-1-lvpengfei20@huawei.com>
On Fri, 6 Nov 2026 11:16:25 +0800, Pengfei Lv wrote:
> Per USB 2.0 spec section 5.5.3, the ep0 maxpacket size is fixed for
> all device speeds except full-speed devices, where it can be 8, 16,
> 32, or 64 bytes and can only be determined by reading the device
> descriptor. During the initial enumeration of a full-speed device,
> the USB core guesses 64 bytes (hub_port_init() with initial=true);
> after reading the descriptor, the real value (e.g. 8) is stored in
> udev->ep0.desc.wMaxPacketSize and propagated to the xHCI ep0 context
> via an Evaluate Context command.
... and applied to hardware by the usb_ep0_reinit() call.
Is there anything xHCI-specific about this issue?
Any properly working HCD should behave equivalently.
>
> After a port reset (usb_reset_and_verify_device() -> hub_port_init()
> with initial=false), the "if (initial)" guard added by commit
> ff33299ec8bb ("USB: core: Fix race by not overwriting udev->descriptor in hub_port_init()")
>
> skips the ep0 maxpacket guess block, so
> udev->ep0.desc.wMaxPacketSize retains the real value (e.g. 8). The
> xHCI Reset Device command preserves the ep0 context as well, so the
> xHC ep0 max_packet also stays at 8.
So it's another unimportant xHCI implementation detail.
Doesn't need to be mentioned at all; it's obvious that if we don't
change ep0.desc then there is no reason to update the HW either.
> When the subsequent re-enumeration then uses the "new scheme" and
> issues a 64-byte GET_DESCRIPTOR (get_bMaxPacketSize0 with size=64),
> the xHC queues a Data TRB
xHC is the HW, it doesn't queue any TRBs.
Why not just omit all those irrelevant details of how xHCI implements
policies decided by this code?
> of length 64 but applies ep0 max_packet=8
> for short-packet detection. If the device's first data packet is
> exactly 8 bytes and it sends no ZLP,
It certainly shouldn't be sending any ZLP if descriptor size is not
a multiple of packet size. This whole paragraph boils down to:
If a buggy device responds with one 8 byte packet and NAKs all
further polling, the HC doesn't recognize a short transfer but
keeps polling for the rest of the descriptor till unlink.
> the xHC does not recognise a
> short packet, keeps issuing IN tokens for the remaining 56 bytes, and
> the control transfer hangs in the Data stage until URB timeout.
>
> This is not merely theoretical. It was observed in production on a
s/is not merely theoretical. It// would still be fine.
> 6.6 LTS kernel with a Full-Speed USB banking token (bMaxPacketSize0
> = 8) in a virtual-machine USB passthrough scenario; the reset
> re-enumeration hangs 100% of the time after the VM issues
> USBDEVFS_RESET. Bus captures with an Ellisys analyzer confirm that
> the device sends exactly one 8-byte packet for the 64-byte request
> and then stops responding to IN tokens, relying on the host's
> short-packet detection with max_packet=64 to terminate the transfer.
> For the subsequent 18-byte GET_DESCRIPTOR (usb_get_device_descriptor,
> wLength=18) the same device sends the full 18 bytes as 8 + 8 + 2;
> the final 2-byte packet is always a short packet regardless of
> max_packet, so that transfer succeeds on both kernels. This is why
> the device completes initial enumeration yet hangs on reset
> re-enumeration.
>
> The device is not strictly compliant (it should continue answering
> IN tokens for the 64-byte request), but this class of USB banking
> token is widely deployed in enterprise environments, and the
> regression introduced by commit ff33299ec8bb ("USB: core: Fix race by not overwriting udev->descriptor in hub_port_init()") breaks a configuration that
> previously worked.
>
> Fix this by removing the "if (initial)" guard so that the ep0 maxpacket
> size is re-guessed from udev->speed on every reset, and by calling
> usb_ep0_reinit() afterwards when !initial so that the new software
> value is propagated to the xHCI ep0 context via an Evaluate Context
> command before the GET_DESCRIPTOR data stage.
More unnecessary xHCI details.
> The usb_ep0_reinit() call is necessary because commit e34900f46cd6
> ("xhci: Reconfigure endpoint 0 max packet size only during endpoint reset")
> moved the ep0 maxpacket sync point from xhci_urb_enqueue()
> (xhci_check_maxpacket, lazy per-URB) to xhci_endpoint_reset()
> (xhci_check_ep0_maxpacket, eager), reachable only via
> usb_ep0_reinit() -> usb_enable_endpoint(reset_ep=true) ->
> usb_hcd_reset_endpoint() -> xhci_endpoint_reset(). Without the
> explicit usb_ep0_reinit() after the re-guess, no Evaluate Context
> command is issued on the reset path: the pre-existing
> usb_ep0_reinit() in usb_reset_and_verify_device() runs before
> hub_port_init() and thus syncs the stale value, and the subsequent
> hub_enable_device() -> xhci_setup_device(SETUP_CONTEXT_ONLY) returns
> early when the slot is already in SLOT_STATE_DEFAULT.
Does this need to be explained?
usb_ep0_reinit() is quite self-explanatory, or its effects could be
explained with one HCD-agnostic sentence if you must.
> The !initial guard on the new usb_ep0_reinit() call ensures that
> initial enumeration is unaffected: on first enumeration the ep0
> context is initialised by the Address Device command, so no extra
> Evaluate Context is needed.
This, of course, makes assumption that xhci-hcd has guessed the same
initial values as USB core. (Which it currently does).
Not sure if this optimization is worth bothering with. For xhci-hcd
at least, usb_ep0_reniti() exits quickly if no change occurred. And
you say it's a no-op for others? Great, who cares if we call it.
> For high-speed, low-speed, and
> SuperSpeed-or-faster devices, xhci_endpoint_reset() returns early
> (speed != USB_SPEED_FULL), so the call is a no-op on xHCI, and on
> non-xHCI host controllers endpoint_reset for control endpoints is
> likewise a no-op (e.g. ehci_endpoint_reset only handles bulk and
> interrupt endpoints). The descriptor-immutability checks (!initial
> && maxp0 != udev->descriptor.bMaxPacketSize0) remain unchanged;
> udev->ep0.desc is not part of udev->descriptor and is not the field
> involved in the read_descriptors() race that commit ff33299ec8bb ("USB: core: Fix race by not overwriting udev->descriptor in hub_port_init()") fixed, so
> restoring the wMaxPacketSize re-guess does not reopen that race.
>
> Fixes: ff33299ec8bb ("USB: core: Fix race by not overwriting udev->descriptor in hub_port_init()")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Pengfei Lv <lvpengfei20@huawei.com>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Add usb_ep0_reinit(udev) after the ep0 maxpacket re-guess block,
> guarded by !initial, to propagate the new wMaxPacketSize to the
> xHCI ep0 context. v1 only removed the if(initial) guard, which
> is insufficient after commit e34900f46cd6 ("xhci: Reconfigure endpoint 0 max packet size only during endpoint reset")
> moved the xHCI ep0
> maxpacket sync point from xhci_urb_enqueue() (xhci_check_maxpacket,
> lazy per-URB) to xhci_endpoint_reset() (xhci_check_ep0_maxpacket,
> eager), reachable only via usb_ep0_reinit(). The !initial guard
> avoids a redundant Evaluate Context on first enumeration, where the
> Address Device command already initialises the ep0 context to 64.
> (Sashiko AI review)
> - Expand commit message with observed-in-production evidence and the
> wLength=64 vs wLength=18 device behavior distinction, per Alan
> Stern's review.
> - Note: on kernels before e34900f46cd6 (e.g. 6.6 LTS), the xHCI ep0
> maxpacket sync happens lazily in xhci_urb_enqueue() via
> xhci_check_maxpacket(), so removing the if(initial) guard alone is
> sufficient and the extra usb_ep0_reinit() call is a no-op for ep0
> maxpacket sync (xhci_endpoint_reset returns early for control
> endpoints on those kernels). This patch targets current mainline
> where e34900f46cd6 is already present. Would the maintainers
> prefer a separate, simpler patch (without the usb_ep0_reinit()
> addition) for stable branches predating e34900f46cd6, or is this
> single patch acceptable for backport given that the
> usb_ep0_reinit() call is harmless on those kernels?
> ---
> drivers/usb/core/hub.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/hub.c b/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
> index 199d3f535a89..a6c260d39094 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/core/hub.c
> @@ -4969,33 +4969,34 @@ hub_port_init(struct usb_hub *hub, struct usb_device *udev, int port1,
> }
> oldspeed = udev->speed;
>
> - if (initial) {
> - /* USB 2.0 section 5.5.3 talks about ep0 maxpacket ...
> - * it's fixed size except for full speed devices.
> + /* USB 2.0 section 5.5.3 talks about ep0 maxpacket ...
> + * it's fixed size except for full speed devices.
> + */
> + switch (udev->speed) {
> + case USB_SPEED_SUPER_PLUS:
> + case USB_SPEED_SUPER:
> + udev->ep0.desc.wMaxPacketSize = cpu_to_le16(512);
> + break;
> + case USB_SPEED_HIGH: /* fixed at 64 */
> + udev->ep0.desc.wMaxPacketSize = cpu_to_le16(64);
> + break;
> + case USB_SPEED_FULL: /* 8, 16, 32, or 64 */
> + /* to determine the ep0 maxpacket size, try to read
> + * the device descriptor to get bMaxPacketSize0 and
> + * then correct our initial guess.
> */
> - switch (udev->speed) {
> - case USB_SPEED_SUPER_PLUS:
> - case USB_SPEED_SUPER:
> - udev->ep0.desc.wMaxPacketSize = cpu_to_le16(512);
> - break;
> - case USB_SPEED_HIGH: /* fixed at 64 */
> - udev->ep0.desc.wMaxPacketSize = cpu_to_le16(64);
> - break;
> - case USB_SPEED_FULL: /* 8, 16, 32, or 64 */
> - /* to determine the ep0 maxpacket size, try to read
> - * the device descriptor to get bMaxPacketSize0 and
> - * then correct our initial guess.
> - */
> - udev->ep0.desc.wMaxPacketSize = cpu_to_le16(64);
> - break;
> - case USB_SPEED_LOW: /* fixed at 8 */
> - udev->ep0.desc.wMaxPacketSize = cpu_to_le16(8);
> - break;
> - default:
> - goto fail;
> - }
> + udev->ep0.desc.wMaxPacketSize = cpu_to_le16(64);
> + break;
> + case USB_SPEED_LOW: /* fixed at 8 */
> + udev->ep0.desc.wMaxPacketSize = cpu_to_le16(8);
> + break;
> + default:
> + goto fail;
> }
>
> + if (!initial)
> + usb_ep0_reinit(udev);
> +
> speed = usb_speed_string(udev->speed);
>
> /*
> --
> 2.34.1
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-06 7:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-04 12:44 [PATCH] " Pengfei Lv
2026-11-04 14:59 ` Alan Stern
2026-11-04 17:36 ` Michal Pecio
2026-11-05 5:06 ` Alan Stern
2026-11-05 12:30 ` Michal Pecio
2026-11-06 3:16 ` [PATCH v2] " Pengfei Lv
2026-11-06 7:17 ` Michal Pecio [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=20261106081703.295cc0a2.michal.pecio@gmail.com \
--to=michal.pecio@gmail.com \
--cc=caiyadong@huawei.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lvpengfei20@huawei.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=suzhuangluan@hisilicon.com \
--cc=xuetao09@huawei.com \
--cc=xuhaiyang5@hisilicon.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®