linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v5] 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: <7f6e53d04849daabd3e85c23f9974b2eb4a20c13.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Tue, 05 Oct 2021 08:39:14 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] docs: Explain the desired position of function
 attributes

On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 08:26 -0700, Kees Cook 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.
> +For example, using this function declaration example::
> +
> + __init void * __must_check action(enum magic value, size_t size, u8 count,
> +				   char *fmt, ...) __printf(4, 5) __malloc;

trivia: almost all fmt declarations should be const char *

> +Note that for a function **definition** (i.e. the actual function body),
> +the compiler does not allow function parameter attributes after the
> +function parameters. In these cases, they should go after the storage
> +class attributes (e.g. note the changed position of ``__printf(4, 5)``
> +below, compared to the **declaration** example above)::
> +
> + static __always_inline __init __printf(4, 5) void * __must_check action(enum magic value,
> +		size_t size, u8 count, char *fmt, ...) __malloc

here too, and 80 columns?

> + {
> +	...
> + }

Or just put all the attributes before the storage class... <grumble/chuckle>

cheers, Joe