linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] genalloc: track beginning of allocations

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, 12 Feb 2018 13:17:01 +0200
From:   Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:     <willy@...radead.org>, <rdunlap@...radead.org>, <corbet@....net>,
        <keescook@...omium.org>, <mhocko@...nel.org>, <labbott@...hat.com>,
        <jglisse@...hat.com>, <hch@...radead.org>, <cl@...ux.com>,
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] genalloc: track beginning of allocations



On 11/02/18 14:24, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 05:19:15AM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
[...]

>> +/**
>> + * mem_to_units - convert references to memory into orders of allocation
> 
> Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst recommends to to include brackets
> for function comments. I haven't noticed any difference in the resulting
> html, so I'm not sure if the brackets are actually required.

This is what I see in the example from mailine docs:

/**
 * foobar() - Brief description of foobar.
 * @argument1: Description of parameter argument1 of foobar.
 * @argument2: Description of parameter argument2 of foobar.
 *
 * Longer description of foobar.
 *
 * Return: Description of return value of foobar.
 */
int foobar(int argument1, char *argument2)


What are you referring to?

[...]

>> + * @size: amount in bytes
>> + * @order: power of 2 represented by each entry in the bitmap
>> + *
>> + * Returns the number of units representing the size.
> 
> Please s/Return/Return:/

:-( I thought I had fixed them all. thanks for spotting this.

[...]

>> + * Return: If two users alter the same bit, to one it will return
>> + * remaining entries, to the other it will return 0.
> 
> And what if there are three or four concurrent users? ;-)
> 
> I believe that a more elaborate description about what happens with
> concurrent attempts to alter the bitmap would be really helpful.

ok

--
thanks, igor