netdev - Re: [net-next 5/5] net: sock: remove the definition of SOCK

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]

Date:   Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:22:33 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, shaoyafang@...iglobal.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 5/5] net: sock: remove the definition of SOCK_DEBUG()

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:13 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:26 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 6:50 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > As SOCK_DEBUG() isn't used any more, we can get ride of it now.
> > >
> >
> > No, we are still using this infrastructure from time to time.
> >
> > I told you I agreed to remove the current (obsolete) TCP call sites,
> >  I never suggested to remove SOCK_DEBUG() completely.
>
> Since when do we upstream care about any out-of-tree users?
>

> You can always carry a patch to keep it downstream if you want,
> no one can stop you doing it.

Somehow the patch series seems to present things in this way :

Eric Dumazet suggested to remove completely the SOCK_DEBUG() interface.

I did not.

I sometimes am lazy and use SOCK_DEBUG() myself, so I would like we keep it.

I know that others are doing the same thing, so I do not feel any shame.

Feel free to ignore my feedback.