linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/6] netdevice: convert private flags

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: <0a73afa3-f834-4b77-9762-6431cd40f3e2@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:53:20 +0200
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, David Ahern
	<dsahern@...nel.org>, Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, Andrew Lunn
	<andrew@...n.ch>, Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
	<nex.sw.ncis.osdt.itp.upstreaming@...el.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/6] netdevice: convert private flags >
 BIT(31) to bitfields

From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 11:04:13 -0700

> On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 14:09:31 +0200 Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>> The kdoc scripts says:
>>>
>>> include/linux/netdevice.h:2392: warning: Excess struct member 'priv_flags_fast' description in 'net_device'
>>>
>>> I thought you sent a kernel-doc patch during previous cycle to fix this,
>>> or was that for something else?  
>>
>> Oh crap.
>> The patch I sent expands struct_group_tagged() only.
>> If I do the same for the regular struct_group(), there'll clearly be a
>> ton of new warnings.
>> I think I'll just submit v4 with removing this line from the kdoc?
> 
> No preference on direction, but not avoiding the warning would be great.
> 
> I reckon whether kdoc is useful for the group will depend case by case.
> Best would be if we made the kdoc optional in this particular case.
> But dunno if you have cycles so you can just delete.

I have some cycles, but I dunno if we can make some kdoc fields
description optional, I didn't work with the kdoc script that deep.

Thanks,
Olek