netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/2] net: sock: undefine 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: <CALOAHbDA22BNsBR44AEz-+RaVTj1YagOM2QGFx9zorQ-9nyzxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 17 Feb 2019 22:07:54 +0800
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, shaoyafang@...iglobal.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/2] net: sock: undefine SOCK_DEBUGGING

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 7:58 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 00:28 +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > SOCK_DEBUG() is a old facility for debugging.
> > If the user want to use it for debugging, the user must modify the
> > application first, that doesn't seem like a good way.
> > Now we have more powerful facilities, i.e. bpf or tracepoint, for this kind
> > of debugging purpose.
> > So we'd better disable it by default.
> > The reason why I don't remove it comepletely is that someone may still
> > would like to use it for debugging.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
> > Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> > ---
> >  include/net/sock.h | 13 ++++++++-----
> >  net/core/sock.c    |  3 +++
> >  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> > index 6679f3c..d41e8f4 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))  \
> > +             pr_debug(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__);   \
>
> trivia:
>
> I would not suggest pr_debug here as it also requires
> either DEBUG to be defined or CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG
> to be set.
>
> If you really set SOCK_DEBUGGING, then printk(KERN_DEBUG
> is probably right.
>

Sure. Will change it.

Thanks
Yafang