linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v4] docs: Explain the desired position of function attributes

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]

Message-ID: <YVf80rXg8Yd19Hmw@kroah.com>
Date:   Sat, 2 Oct 2021 08:31:46 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] docs: Explain the desired position of function
 attributes

On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 12:05:25PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 4:58 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > While discussing how to format the addition of various function
> > attributes, some "unwritten rules" of ordering surfaced[1]. Capture as
> > close as possible to Linus's preferences for future reference.
> >
> > (Though I note the dissent voiced by Joe Perches, Alexey Dobriyan, and
> > others that would prefer all attributes live on a separate leading line.)
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wiOCLRny5aifWNhr621kYrJwhfURsa0vFPeUEm8mF0ufg@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> 
> While I appreciate you getting the ball across the finish line (having
> _any_ documentation to point to in future bikesheds), I can't help but
> shake the feeling that the chosen policy will harm the ability of
> existing automated code formatting tools from being able to automate
> code formatting on the kernel.

Why would documenting the expected format have an affect on tools not
being able to follow that exact expected format?  Are we defining a
format that is somehow impossible for them to use?

If anything I would think that now we have a format that the tools can
actually follow, while before it was semi-random as to what to pick as
the "one true way".

What am I missing here?

thanks,

greg k-h