netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUknnab0bwJgp3-F864-02LsH+J07c8SzMZyYK84yoezw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:58:36 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        shaoyafang@...iglobal.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/2] net: sock: undefine SOCK_DEBUGGING

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:29 PM David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:00:09 -0800
>
> > Just to clarify, I have been suggesting to completely remove
> > this unused macro, never suggest to just undefine it in-tree.
> >
> > There is no reason to keep it in-tree, whether defined or undefined,
> > just for downstream users.
>
> And this is where you and I fundamentally disagree.

So you agree that I can add debugging printk's only for my own use?
I can claim that I only use them downstream and you can't force me
to carry local changes?

If not, what is your criteria for accepting debugging printk's? Whose
can be accepted and whose can't?

Please be specific, and ideally make it a formal doc in netdev-FAQ.txt.

Thanks!