netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: Remove commented out code

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: <20250212195747.198419a3@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:57:47 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>
Cc: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
 <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>, Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>, "David S.
 Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
 <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: Remove commented out code

On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:33:57 +0100 Mateusz Polchlopek wrote:
> >> I don't think we want to remove that piece of code, please refer
> >> to the discussion under the link:
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cover.1681917361.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com/  
> > 
> > Hm, the commit message (dbda0fba7a14) says payload was deleted because
> > "the member is not even used anywhere," but it was just commented out.
> > In the cover letter it then explains that "deleted" actually means
> > "commented out."
> > 
> > However, I can't follow the reasoning in the cover letter either:
> > 
> > "Note that instead of completely deleting it, we just leave it as a
> > comment in the struct, signalling to the reader that we do expect
> > such variable parameters over there, as Marcelo suggested."
> > 
> > Where do I find Marcelo's suggestion and the "variable parameters over
> > there?"
> >   
> 
> That's good question, I can't find the Marcelo suggestion that author
> mention. It's hard to find without links to previous series or
> discussion :/
> 
> I guess it should be also commented by maintainers, I see that in the
> Xin's thread Kuba also commented change with commenting out instead
> of removing code. Let's wait

In the linked thread the point was to document what struct will be next
in memory. Here we'd be leaving an array of u8s which isn't very
informative. I see there's precedent in this file, but I vote we just
delete the line.
-- 
pw-bot: cr