Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] SCTP updates

[Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>]

On 07/09/2014 05:13 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 03:28:03PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 07/09/2014 12:49 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 11:57:37AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>> On 07/08/2014 04:41 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 04:05:26PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/08/2014 01:14 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> since you're adding cmsg's from rfc6458, do you also want to add some
>>>>>>> deprecation warnings around the use of SCTP_SNDRCVINFO too, so we can start to
>>>>>>> schedule its eventual removal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, we can do that. Do you want me to include it into the set?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're plan is to implement 6458, then yes, I think that would be good.
>>>>
>>>> Looking a bit closer at it, all our pr_warn_ratelimited(DEPRECATED ...)
>>>> warnings in SCTP are being done in 'slowpath' {set,get}sockopt(2) operations
>>>> only, which is fine. What you're suggesting is to place similar ratelimited
>>>> warnings (due to different possible pids on the machine) into the 'fastpath'
>>>> where we get and set cmsg message headers.
>>>>
>>>> While that may be fine for {set,get}sockopt(2) that's called once or very few
>>>> times, I'm not sure this is a good idea in SCTP_SNDRCVINFO as it will yield
>>>> to unnecessary spamming the klog since up to now this is the only way our
>>>> users can set or receive this info. I'm not sure we want to annoy users like
>>>> that ...
>>>>
>>> Then we wrap it in a ONCE macro so that it only triggers on the first use
>>> instance.
>>
>> I'm not convinced about this so far. The whole point is that we also provide the
>> pid just as we currently do, so that we give the user a chance to possibly pin
>> point the process that needs code change to not use the deprecated API anymore.
>>
>>>> In how many years do you plan a removal ... I think we're stuck with uapi
>>>> basically forever as we don't want to break old binaries, no? ;/
>>>>
>>> I thought we could remove things on a schedule if we followed the deprecation
>>> process, but that may just be for sysfs.  Regardless, it would still be nice to
>>> inform people they are using an older api.
>>
>> I think we rather might be stuck with also the deprecated stuff forever, just
>> as AF_PACKET still has to carry around the old spkt stuff. :( So if we don't
>> remove anything, there's actually also no point to spam the log about it, if
>> everyone can/should read it from the RFC anyway.
>>
> So this begs the question as to why we have deprecation warnings to begin with.
> At what point do we draw the line where we can change some aspect of the user
> api.  I agree if the answer is never, then yeah we're stuck, but then, why
> bother announcing deprecation warnings at all?

That's a good question, not sure when this was decided, Vlad? ;)