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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALOAHbA9zUS6YbExz-X3+k1ESZoNWm=9p1Hr3USYfCwf3mrS2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 16 Feb 2019 10:50:28 +0800
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...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 Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 2:51 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 10:22 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well, you kinda did.
> It's certainly reasonable to interpret what you wrote as such.
>
> On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 18:15 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Just remove all SOCK_DEBUG() calls, there are leftovers of very ancient times.
>
> My suggestion would be to undefine SOCK_DEBUGGING.
>

This seems like a reasonable trade-off decision.
I will change it like this.

> Something like:
> ---
>  include/net/sock.h | 13 ++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> index 328cb7cb7b0b..7e39bdfa342a 100644
> --- a/include/net/sock.h
> +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> @@ -81,14 +81,17 @@
>   */
>
>  /* Define this to get the SOCK_DBG debugging facility. */
> -#define SOCK_DEBUGGING
> +/* #define SOCK_DEBUGGING */
>  #ifdef SOCK_DEBUGGING
> -#define SOCK_DEBUG(sk, msg...) do { if ((sk) && sock_flag((sk), SOCK_DBG)) \
> -                                       printk(KERN_DEBUG msg); } while (0)
> +#define SOCK_DEBUG(sk, fmt, ...)                               \
> +do {                                                           \
> +       if ((sk) && sock_flag((sk), SOCK_DBG))                  \
> +               printk(KERN_DEBUG fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__);          \
> +} while (0)
>  #else
>  /* Validate arguments and do nothing */
> -static inline __printf(2, 3)
> -void SOCK_DEBUG(const struct sock *sk, const char *msg, ...)
> +__printf(2, 3)
> +static inline void SOCK_DEBUG(const struct sock *sk, const char *fmt, ...)
>  {
>  }
>  #endif
>
>

Thanks
Yafang