linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/18] Documentation: document nospec helpers

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 8 Jan 2018 09:29:17 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] Documentation: document nospec helpers

On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 17:10:03 -0800
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:

> Document the rationale and usage of the new nospec*() helpers.

I have just a couple of overall comments.

 - It would be nice if the document were done in RST and placed in the
   core-API manual, perhaps using kerneldoc comments for the macros
   themselves.  It's already 99.9% RST now, so the changes required would
   be minimal.

 - More importantly: is there any way at all to give guidance to
   developers wondering *when* they should use these primitives?  I think
   it would be easy to create a situation where they don't get used where
   they are really needed; meanwhile, there may well be a flood of
   "helpful" patches adding them where they make no sense at all.

Thanks,

jon