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

Message-ID: <CALOAHbAW7nQR3_+=zW65ve4b1BSF_5kgvEyg5P3ZZ3xTQYaEyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:54:31 +0800
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        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 Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:58 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Per my personal view, I agree with you that we should remove it completely.

Clean up such kind of legacy code can make the kernel more clean.

Thanks
Yafang