[Bug 281843] "check for in-use endpoints" code in usb_config_parse() is missing an increment
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 281843] "check for in-use endpoints" code in usb_config_parse() is missing an increment"
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 281843] "check for in-use endpoints" code in usb_config_parse() is missing an increment"
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 281843] "check for in-use endpoints" code in usb_config_parse() is missing an increment"
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 281843] "check for in-use endpoints" code in usb_config_parse() is missing an increment"
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 281843] "check for in-use endpoints" code in usb_config_parse() is missing an increment"
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 281843] "check for in-use endpoints" code in usb_config_parse() is missing an increment"
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 281843] "check for in-use endpoints" code in usb_config_parse() is missing an increment"
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 281843] "check for in-use endpoints" code in usb_config_parse() is missing an increment"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2024 03:26:19 UTC
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=281843 Bug ID: 281843 Summary: "check for in-use endpoints" code in usb_config_parse() is missing an increment Product: Base System Version: 13.3-RELEASE Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Only Me Priority: --- Component: usb Assignee: usb@FreeBSD.org Reporter: mhjacobson@me.com sys/dev/usb/usb_device.c:846 (in usb_config_parse()): ``` /* check for in-use endpoints */ if (cmd == USB_CFG_INIT) { ep = udev->endpoints; ep_max = udev->endpoints_max; while (ep_max--) { /* look for matching endpoints */ if (iface_index == USB_IFACE_INDEX_ANY || iface_index == ep->iface_index) { if (ep->refcount_alloc != 0) return (USB_ERR_IN_USE); } } } ``` This code is missing an `ep++`. See the similar loop below, which does have the increment. I'm hitting a panic that seems to be caused by changing alternate interface index while transfers are outstanding, which this code is supposed to prevent. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that this is at least part of the problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.