netdev - Re: [RFC bpf-next] bpf: document eBPF helpers and add a script to generate man page

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, 9 Apr 2018 12:08:50 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>, ast@...nel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next] bpf: document eBPF helpers and add a script to
 generate man page

On 04/09/2018 11:35 AM, Markus Heiser wrote:
> 
>> Am 09.04.2018 um 11:25 schrieb Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>:
>>
>> On 04/09/2018 11:21 AM, Markus Heiser wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Do we really need another kernel-doc parser?
>>>
>>>  ./scripts/kernel-doc include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>>>
>>> should already do the job (producing .rst). For more infos, take a look at
>>
>> This has absolutely zero to do with kernel-doc, but rather producing
>> a description of BPF helper function that are later assembled into an
>> actual man-page that BPF program developers (user space) can use.
> 
> May I completely misunderstood you, so correct my if I'am wrong:
> 
> - ./scripts/bpf_helpers_doc.py : produces reST markup from C-comments
> - ./scripts/kerne-doc          : produces reST markup from C-comments
> 
> IMO: both are doing the same job, so why not using kernel-doc?

They are not really doing the same job, in bpf_helpers_doc.py case you don't
want the whole header rendered, but just a fraction of it, that is, the
single big comment which describes all BPF helper functions that a BPF
program developer has available to use in user space - aka the entries in
the __BPF_FUNC_MAPPER() macro; I also doubt the latter would actually qualify
in kdoc context as some sort of a function description.