The debug.config file is really great to easily enable a bunch of
general debugging features on a CI-like setup. But it would be great to
also include core networking debugging config.
A few CI's validating features from the Net tree also enable a few other
debugging options on top of debug.config. A small selection is quite
generic for the whole net tree. They validate some assumptions in
different parts of the core net tree. As suggested by Jakub Kicinski in
[1], having them added to this debug.config file would help other CIs
using network features to find bugs in this area.
Note that the two REFCNT configs also select REF_TRACKER, which doesn't
seem to be an issue.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240202093148.33bd2b14@kernel.org/T/ [1]
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
---
Notes:
- It looks like this debug.config doesn't have a specific maintainer.
If this patch is not rejected, I don't know if this modification can
go through the net tree, or if it should be handled by Andrew.
Probably the latter? I didn't add [net-next] in the subject for this
reason.
---
kernel/configs/debug.config | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 11:47:14AM +0100, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote:
The debug.config file is really great to easily enable a bunch of
general debugging features on a CI-like setup. But it would be great to
also include core networking debugging config.
A few CI's validating features from the Net tree also enable a few other
debugging options on top of debug.config. A small selection is quite
generic for the whole net tree. They validate some assumptions in
different parts of the core net tree. As suggested by Jakub Kicinski in
[1], having them added to this debug.config file would help other CIs
using network features to find bugs in this area.
Note that the two REFCNT configs also select REF_TRACKER, which doesn't
seem to be an issue.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240202093148.33bd2b14@kernel.org/T/ [1]
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
---
Notes:
- It looks like this debug.config doesn't have a specific maintainer.
If this patch is not rejected, I don't know if this modification can
go through the net tree, or if it should be handled by Andrew.
Probably the latter? I didn't add [net-next] in the subject for this
reason.
Adding these seem reasonable. I touched debug.config last, so I can take
it via the kernel hardening tree if netdev doesn't want to take it.
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <redacted>
-Kees
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Date: 2024-02-13 01:02:54
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:39:55 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
quoted
Notes:
- It looks like this debug.config doesn't have a specific maintainer.
If this patch is not rejected, I don't know if this modification can
go through the net tree, or if it should be handled by Andrew.
Probably the latter? I didn't add [net-next] in the subject for this
reason.
Adding these seem reasonable. I touched debug.config last, so I can take
it via the kernel hardening tree if netdev doesn't want to take it.
I'd prefer to have it in net-next sooner rather than later, because
when our CI hits an issue we can tell people:
make defconfig debug.config
make
otherwise I have to explain what options to twiddle with. And the
refcount options do catch bugs, I had to do this exact the explaining
last Friday :(
So I'd offer these three options:
- we put it on a shared branch and both pull in
- you send to Linus within a week and we'll get it soon that way
- we take it to net-next directly
What's your preference?
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: 2024-02-13 01:27:49
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 17:02:53 -0800 Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:39:55 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
quoted
quoted
Notes:
- It looks like this debug.config doesn't have a specific maintainer.
If this patch is not rejected, I don't know if this modification can
go through the net tree, or if it should be handled by Andrew.
Probably the latter? I didn't add [net-next] in the subject for this
reason.
Adding these seem reasonable. I touched debug.config last, so I can take
it via the kernel hardening tree if netdev doesn't want to take it.
I'd prefer to have it in net-next sooner rather than later, because
when our CI hits an issue we can tell people:
make defconfig debug.config
make
otherwise I have to explain what options to twiddle with. And the
refcount options do catch bugs, I had to do this exact the explaining
last Friday :(
So I'd offer these three options:
- we put it on a shared branch and both pull in
- you send to Linus within a week and we'll get it soon that way
- we take it to net-next directly
What's your preference?
On February 12, 2024 5:02:53 PM PST, Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:39:55 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
quoted
quoted
Notes:
- It looks like this debug.config doesn't have a specific maintainer.
If this patch is not rejected, I don't know if this modification can
go through the net tree, or if it should be handled by Andrew.
Probably the latter? I didn't add [net-next] in the subject for this
reason.
Adding these seem reasonable. I touched debug.config last, so I can take
it via the kernel hardening tree if netdev doesn't want to take it.
I'd prefer to have it in net-next sooner rather than later, because
when our CI hits an issue we can tell people:
make defconfig debug.config
make
otherwise I have to explain what options to twiddle with. And the
refcount options do catch bugs, I had to do this exact the explaining
last Friday :(
So I'd offer these three options:
- we put it on a shared branch and both pull in
- you send to Linus within a week and we'll get it soon that way
- we take it to net-next directly
What's your preference?
Totally fine in net-next! Go for it. :)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Hello:
This patch was applied to netdev/net-next.git (main)
by Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref]:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 11:47:14 +0100 you wrote:
The debug.config file is really great to easily enable a bunch of
general debugging features on a CI-like setup. But it would be great to
also include core networking debugging config.
A few CI's validating features from the Net tree also enable a few other
debugging options on top of debug.config. A small selection is quite
generic for the whole net tree. They validate some assumptions in
different parts of the core net tree. As suggested by Jakub Kicinski in
[1], having them added to this debug.config file would help other CIs
using network features to find bugs in this area.
[...]