Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:56:59 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: USB system: FreeBSD 9-STABLE and 10-CURRENT do not recognize 64GB USB drive while Linux and Windows do Message-ID: <201206231256.59343.hselasky@c2i.net> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmom1kvuLaqktQJLc_DsREJsEdcsrfhP4fVp3XvSqxyNKdA@mail.gmail.com> References: <4FE40A42.6010503@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <201206220822.19486.hselasky@c2i.net> <CAJ-Vmom1kvuLaqktQJLc_DsREJsEdcsrfhP4fVp3XvSqxyNKdA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 23 June 2012 11:52:53 Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 21 June 2012 23:22, Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> wrote: > > usbconfig -d 7.6 add_quirk UQ_MSC_NO_INQUIRY > >=20 > > Then re-plug it. > >=20 > > I'm sorry to say a lot of USB flash sticks out there are broken and only > > tested with the timing of MS Windows. Part of the problem is that it is > > difficult to autodetect these issues, because once you trigger the non- > > supported SCSI command, then the flash key stops working like you > > experience. > >=20 > > I would be more than glad to open up an office to certify USB devices f= or > > use with FreeBSD :-) >=20 > Question - if that's the case, then why are we even doing that by default? >=20 Hi, Do you want a blacklist or do you want a whitelist? Please explain the pros= =20 and cons. I believe that those that program wrong shall be held responsible for that = and=20 given a chance to clean up, and not the opposite way around. As a senior=20 programmer I can only testify that many people care equally little about wh= at=20 their computer is made of and what they eat. We probably need a control bod= y=20 to certify USB devices that is cheaper than USB.org, simply put. I think it is a bad idea to cripple all USB SCSI devices because what looks= =20 like the majority do not obey the rules of the specifications they are=20 supposed to support. Else we need to make a new USB SCSI class for devices= =20 that are certified and one for devices that are not certified. Non-certifie= d=20 devices can have a limited SCSI command set, which should be implemented in= =20 the CAM layer like some kind of flag. If we could join heads on the Linux guys on this, we might be able to do=20 something! Like having a pop-up every time a USB device fails certain tests. =46rom the history we can predict what people will do when they do not know= what=20 they are doing. They will nail the guy doing it right and let the guy doing= it=20 wrong go free. And it seems like this happened before too ;-) I have a personal FreeBSD-native USB test utilty that runs mass storage=20 devices through a series of tests. Most USB mass storage devices I've teste= d=20 so far have obvious bugs, which either means their firmware can be hacked o= r=20 made to crash. Also worth noting, that many USB device are not certified at all. It might = be=20 clever to look for the USB logo from USB.org next time you want to transfer= X=20 GB of personal data from location X to Y. =2D-HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201206231256.59343.hselasky>