linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] yama: document function parameter

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: <CAHC9VhQZNpz3m-YBrKtuoX1Ve4cPQ3rr3Y1ONjXA0hcsu7RqXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:18:38 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Christian Göttsche <cgzones@...glemail.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, 
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] yama: document function parameter

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 3:18 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 8:54 AM Christian Göttsche
> <cgzones@...glemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Document the unused function parameter of yama_relation_cleanup() to
> > please kernel doc warnings.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Göttsche <cgzones@...glemail.com>
> > ---
> >  security/yama/yama_lsm.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> One small comment below, but otherwise looks okay to me.
>
> Reviewed-by:

Bah, let's try that again ...

Reviewed-by: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>

> > diff --git a/security/yama/yama_lsm.c b/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
> > index 49dc52b454ef..f8e4acd41b72 100644
> > --- a/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
> > +++ b/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
> > @@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ static void report_access(const char *access, struct task_struct *target,
> >
> >  /**
> >   * yama_relation_cleanup - remove invalid entries from the relation list
> > + * @work: unused
> >   *
> >   */
> >  static void yama_relation_cleanup(struct work_struct *work)
>
> Should we also take this opportunity to mark the parameter as '__always_unused'?

-- 
paul-moore.com