From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.netfilter.org (mail.netfilter.org [217.70.190.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B2AF3C1419; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 12:17:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787573878; cv=none; b=J97fAXMnONrqeVfE1pYbjJOGxARLzwFtXS1Zhg2gtlkgKIomypmHaugDJc+bs4xllC+11LG4Kp6W6JoPYZgLnHlQVHqnlQA7lchtgJNnNuh2k4UO1Zspt7vhitSr2236hZcS2tdhoXdB1l7f3zgtNMgU/RWEX4HMK/taKi2+u2c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787573878; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8iZRLdTY2uWNB/WjreXNvSnWAVlhsoht3UX/weBZ/7o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=DECeENSrH2msfJLjZkxLzJEX4YlKJWxrr9i8Ik+w/qumirEePoTtFs6T1WbIO6wucdZOfCrb618UlZpt7HycD2sVd8hZlscAZrfhEUYhCWGF4td6Humez0dJdW+kfSdDfILIjhppu8ShlaW3nV8dc8AkBqP5zqU8USGQk7WlDkk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b=mdIEqwwZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b="mdIEqwwZ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfilter.org; s=2025; t=1787573866; bh=AIR0A/Uj2z5p/14yHn1wPSrrDdFx2br5I5dXc+RKdvM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mdIEqwwZbqn+b5exsnJqD1UxFAgMylDsR9r4P8nYLX9UJD4XVXaUqOiE32GjpPaUA xEsqGO0UMTf7cUhcpDlfDpG8pCrKEBU4jLBHoY3yruEFwXjvbSHRfy0NIhIbwacHdE 3fc7uK1oboVbGSh55o3T4603SkuPPDAl5QaGuXSGRb4dOHTqrqYoYvW7XM5wLWxtdZ It4+edIEjl4u5mhDXE442mSod7NQ8mjLE0iUlguf9YSFZizUr7tLL1/m4YfG7r0iL+ FdGEhxe5mWwl2tQi5VOOTq8gxHL9IS2eLQf4hTOwf4bTTolgVRzMHfLR+JZcsoTSCN 5JQ+Uf0b4MMRA== Received: from netfilter.org (mail-agni [217.70.190.124]) by mail.netfilter.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 47E3F60194; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 14:17:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 14:17:43 +0200 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, horms@kernel.org, fw@strlen.de, ja@ssi.bg Subject: Re: [PATCH net 05/10] netfilter: x_tables: remove pr_debug Message-ID: References: <20260821153833.245589-6-pablo@netfilter.org> <20260822195227.2202694-1-kuba@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260822195227.2202694-1-kuba@kernel.org> On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 12:52:27PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this > email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible. > --- > netfilter: x_tables: remove pr_debug > > This drops the pr_debug() calls from a set of xtables matches and > targets, and converts the ones in the .check paths into > pr_info_ratelimited() so that legacy iptables users get a hint in dmesg > when a rule is rejected. > > A few observations below. > > > diff --git a/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6t_hbh.c b/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6t_hbh.c > > index 6d1a5d2026a67..37c207d3152a4 100644 > > --- a/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6t_hbh.c > > +++ b/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6t_hbh.c > > [ ... ] > > > @@ -166,16 +144,16 @@ static int hbh_mt6_check(const struct xt_mtchk_param *par) > > const struct ip6t_opts *optsinfo = par->matchinfo; > > > > if (optsinfo->invflags & ~IP6T_OPTS_INV_MASK) { > > - pr_debug("unknown flags %X\n", optsinfo->invflags); > > + pr_info_ratelimited("unknown flags %X\n", optsinfo->invflags); > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > if (optsinfo->optsnr > IP6T_OPTS_OPTSNR) { > > - pr_debug("too many supported opts specified\n"); > > + pr_info_ratelimited("too many supported opts specified\n"); > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > > > if (optsinfo->flags & IP6T_OPTS_NSTRICT) { > > - pr_debug("Not strict - not implemented"); > > + pr_info_ratelimited("Not strict - not implemented"); > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > [Severity: Low] > Should this string get a trailing newline like its two siblings in > hbh_mt6_check()? Yes, this needs \n in all these pr_debug() to pr_info_ratelimited().