linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 04/13] x86/sgx: Architectural structures

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: <20180828080814.GE15508@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:08:14 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, nhorman@...hat.com,
        npmccallum@...hat.com, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 04/13] x86/sgx: Architectural structures

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:41:29PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * enum sgx_encls_leaves - return codes for ENCLS, ENCLU and ENCLV
> > + * %SGX_SUCCESS:		No error.
> > + * %SGX_INVALID_SIG_STRUCT:	SIGSTRUCT contains an invalid value.
> > + * %SGX_INVALID_ATTRIBUTE:	Enclave is not attempting to access a resource
> > + *				for which it is not authorized.
> > + * %SGX_BLKSTATE:		EPC page is already blocked.
> > + * %SGX_INVALID_MEASUREMENT:	SIGSTRUCT or EINITTOKEN contains an incorrect
> > + *				measurement.
> ...
> > +enum sgx_return_codes {
> > +	SGX_SUCCESS			= 0,
> > +	SGX_INVALID_SIG_STRUCT		= 1,
> > +	SGX_INVALID_ATTRIBUTE		= 2,
> > +	SGX_BLKSTATE			= 3,
> > +	SGX_INVALID_MEASUREMENT		= 4,
> ...
> 
> I don't think I've ever seen this particular method of commenting
> before.  It's rather verbose and duplicates the names twice, which seems
> a bit silly.
> 
> Can you talk a bit about why you chose to do it this way?  I'd
> personally much rather see at least some brief comments inline with the
> definitions.

The reason that I chose this was

  https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt

It is recommended in the "kernel-doc for structs, unions, enums, and
typedefs" section.

/Jarkko