netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] Documentation: dynamic-debug: Add description of level bitmask

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:   Wed, 10 Jun 2020 00:24:25 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] Documentation: dynamic-debug: Add description of
 level bitmask

On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 09:09 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 11:35:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 08:31 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 09:58:07AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 13:16 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > What is wrong with the existing control of dynamic
> > > > > debug messages that you want to add another type of arbitrary grouping
> > > > > to it? 
> > > > 
> > > > There is no existing grouping mechanism.
> > > 
> > > info/warn/err/dbg is what I am referring to.

This is specifically about dbg so that's not relevant is it.
> But each "level" you all come up with will be intrepreted differently
> per driver, causing total confusion (like we have today.)  Try to make
> it better by just removing that mess.

Or add value as it allows the developer to do what's
necessary for their development.

> > > In the beginning, yes, adding loads of different types of debugging
> > > options to a driver is needed by the author, but by the time it is added
> > > to the kernel, all of that should be able to be removed and only a
> > > single "enable debug" should be all that is needed.
> > 
> > No one does that.
> 
> We did that for USB drivers a decade ago, it can be done.

And nearly no one does it.

btw: look up usbip_debug_flag and usbip_dbg_<foo> or the uhci driver