Hi, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:16:25AM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> > In addition, they are a much smaller group for which we can hope >> > to get a reasonable testing coverage. A generic white list will always >> > be a fraction of all possibilities. >> >> not true. The full list of certified devices exists from usb.org. With >> idVendor:idProduct pairs and all. It's just a matter of exposing a >> "compliant" flag on sysfs and having a udev rule that parses the list >> from usb.org and sets "compliant" flag. > > Really? Where is that list, I couldn't find it, but I might be looking > in the wrong place. And are we "allowed" to use it as a whitelist? The http://www.usb.org/kcompliance/view/catalog_search/sselect_item/process/refresh?dev_categories=All%20Categories&hispeed=all&retail_categories=All%20Categories&referring_url=http%3A//www.usb.org/home&step%3Aint=2&tab_data_namespace=13220145A7yW444swog&sitemlist_batch_size%3Aint=200&sitemlist_batch_start%3Aint=1 Now that I look at it, they don't have idVendor:idProduct, only a TID (Test ID??) and only USB-IF would have record of how to translate TID to idVendor:idProduct. Linux Foundation being part of USB-IF, maybe we should start pointing to USB-IF that a list of every certified device with idVendor:idProduct that is freely available, redistributable, etc, is valuable for OS and/or USB Stack vendors (Linux, Mac OS, Windows, MCCI, etc). > last time we tried to do this (taking values from drivers from other > operating systems), I had some uncomfortable conversations with some > corporate lawyers... I see -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
