linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Introduce the latent

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1466032209.19647.20.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:10:09 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
	Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
	linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	bart.vanassche@...disk.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Introduce the latent_entropy gcc plugin

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 16:01 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:55:44 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >  The limit on the length of lines is 80 columns and this is a strongly
> > >  preferred limit.
> > I think the code looks worse when it is truncated to 80 columns but
> > I'll do it and resend the patches.
> Yup, I understand your concerns, but since we're optimizing for
> readability by a larger audience that has agreed to the guidelines in
> CodingStyle, this is what we get. :)
> 
> One area I'm unclear on with kernel coding style, though, is if
> splitting all the stuff prior to function name onto a separate line is
> "acceptable", since that solves most of the long lines where
> __latent_entropy has been added. For example, I don't know which is
> better:
> 
> All on one line (gmail may split this, but my intention is all one line):
> 
> static __latent_entropy void rcu_process_callbacks(struct
> softirq_action *unused)
> 
> Types and attributes on a separate line:
> 
> static __latent_entropy void
> rcu_process_callbacks(struct softirq_action *unused)
> 
> All arguments on the next line:
> 
> static __latent_entropy void rcu_process_callbacks(
>                                                           struct
> softirq_action *unused)
> 
> 
> Greg, do you have a better sense of how to split (or not split) these
> kinds of long lines?

Another option is to add __latent_entropy the same way most
__printf uses are done - on a separate line before the function

__latent_entropy
static void foo(...)