netdev - Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/5] WWAN debugfs tweaks

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <392f3d3cc15018c789ed5fe2a8ad278cd0ceceda.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Tue, 30 Nov 2021 09:03:24 +0100
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@...il.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        M Chetan Kumar <m.chetan.kumar@...el.com>,
        Intel Corporation <linuxwwan@...el.com>,
        Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 0/5] WWAN debugfs tweaks

On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 20:27 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> 
> I personally see your CONFIG_*_DEBUGFS patches as a mistake, which
> complicates code without any gain at all. Even an opposite is true,
> by adding more knobs, you can find yourself with the system which
> has CONFIG_DEBUGFS enabled but with your CONFIG_*_DEBUGFS disabled.
> 

I tend to agree with this - it has already happened to me "in the wild"
that I've had to walk people through a handful of DEBUGFS options to
finally get all the right data ...

johannes