lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:15:39 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@...com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, shaoyafang@...iglobal.com
Subject: Re: [bpf-next 1/2] tcp: replace SOCK_DEBUG() with tcp_stats()

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 6:07 PM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
>

> Let me explain the background for you.
> I want to track some TCP abnormal  behavior in TCP/IP stack. But I
> find there's no good way to do it.
> The current MIBs are per net, other than per socket, that makes it not
> very powerful.
> And the ancient SOCK_DEBUG is not good as well.
> So we think why not cleanup this ancient SOCK_DEBUG() and introduce a
> more powerful method.


I am all for it, but this more powerful method does nothing at all in
the current patches.

I can not accept patches just because they seem to be harmless,
knowing that  the next patches
will be pushed later changing more stuff, just because the new
infrastructure is there "and can be used"

Just remove all SOCK_DEBUG() calls, there are leftovers of very ancient times.

Do not add more debugging stuff unless you can demonstrate
they actually allowed you to find a real bug and that you sent a
public fix for it.

Just adding "cool stuff" in TCP stack does not please me, it is only
more complexity for unproven gain.

Otherwise, I am tempted to think that these BPF hooks are there only
so that a company can more
easily build a private variant of TCP, yet letting the community
maintaining the hard part of TCP stack.

Thank you.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists