netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] ibmvnic: Increase driver logging

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: <20200716160736.GI32107@kitsune.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:07:37 +0200
From:   Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>
To:     Thomas Falcon <tlfalcon@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kuba@...nel.org,
        drt@...ux.ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ibmvnic: Increase driver logging

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:59:58AM -0500, Thomas Falcon wrote:
> 
> On 7/15/20 8:29 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> > Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 17:06:32 -0700
> > 
> > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:51:55 -0500 Thomas Falcon wrote:
> > > >   	free_netdev(netdev);
> > > >   	dev_set_drvdata(&dev->dev, NULL);
> > > > +	netdev_info(netdev, "VNIC client device has been successfully removed.\n");
> > > A step too far, perhaps.
> > > 
> > > In general this patch looks a little questionable IMHO, this amount of
> > > logging output is not commonly seen in drivers. All the the info
> > > messages are just static text, not even carrying any extra information.
> > > In an era of ftrace, and bpftrace, do we really need this?
> > Agreed, this is too much.  This is debugging, and thus suitable for tracing
> > facilities, at best.
> 
> Thanks for your feedback. I see now that I was overly aggressive with this
> patch to be sure, but it would help with narrowing down problems at a first
> glance, should they arise. The driver in its current state logs very little
> of what is it doing without the use of additional debugging or tracing
> facilities. Would it be worth it to pursue a less aggressive version or
> would that be dead on arrival? What are acceptable driver operations to log
> at this level?

Also would it be advisable to add the messages as pr_dbg to be enabled on demand?

Thanks

Michal