netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/2] socket statistics for ss

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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <57fc8849-d1a4-4748-8780-bca3b0c7ca47@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 10:53:58 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
        yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        dccp@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/2] socket statistics for ss



On 05/09/2018 10:31 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2018 10:18:23 -0700
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 05/09/2018 08:22 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>
>>> I am not sure if these patches are worth applying.
>>> The 'ss -s' command has had missing values since 2.4 kernel.
>>> And the first complaints came in only this year.
>>>
>>> Another alternative would be just to remove these fields from ss -s
>>> output and move on.
>>>   
>>
>> Anyway your patches are not netns ready, so lets remove these fields from ss.
>>
>> Or you have to spend _much_ more time on writing and testing the kernel part.
>>
>> Thanks.
> 
> The patches only expose the existing TCP socket accounting infrastructure.
> Several other pieces that sockstat has are not netns aware.
> That is a completely different problem.


Adding a new field counting 'bounds ports' without being netns ready is a total mistake,
as it is useless by current standards.

The first thing that users will do is add proper netns support, with extra complexity in the kernel.

So, instead of pushing some incomplete feature, trying to fool ourselves with a sentiment of 'small cost'
that will later need another 100 lines of code in the kernel, please give us the complete picture.

I am just saying, you can of course ignore my feedback.