On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:15 AM Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 6:07 PM Yafang Shao <laoar.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Let me explain the background for you. > > I want to track some TCP abnormal behavior in TCP/IP stack. But I > > find there's no good way to do it. > > The current MIBs are per net, other than per socket, that makes it not > > very powerful. > > And the ancient SOCK_DEBUG is not good as well. > > So we think why not cleanup this ancient SOCK_DEBUG() and introduce a > > more powerful method. > > > I am all for it, but this more powerful method does nothing at all in > the current patches. > > I can not accept patches just because they seem to be harmless, > knowing that the next patches > will be pushed later changing more stuff, just because the new > infrastructure is there "and can be used" > > Just remove all SOCK_DEBUG() calls, there are leftovers of very ancient times. >
OK. I will send a patch for it. > Do not add more debugging stuff unless you can demonstrate > they actually allowed you to find a real bug and that you sent a > public fix for it. > Sure. > Just adding "cool stuff" in TCP stack does not please me, it is only > more complexity for unproven gain. > > Otherwise, I am tempted to think that these BPF hooks are there only > so that a company can more > easily build a private variant of TCP, yet letting the community > maintaining the hard part of TCP stack. :-) > > Thank you. Thanks Yafang
