linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] TASK :Linux Kernel Bug Fixing: Fixing Warning/Spelling checks on the rst file

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: <87ecwspj05.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 10:34:18 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: rujra <braker.noob.kernel@...il.com>, skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TASK :Linux Kernel Bug Fixing: Fixing Warning/Spelling
 checks on the rst file

Thank you for working to improve our documentation!

A few things...

rujra <braker.noob.kernel@...il.com> writes:

> TASK : Documentation Task

This line doesn't belong in the changelog.

> removed warnings and added "SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0"
> in starting of the file , also instead of using re-use , have used
> reuse.

"also" in a changelog suggests you are doing more than one thing, which
is a sign that a patch needs to be broken up.

> Signed-off-by: Rujra Bhatt <braker.noob.kernel@...il.com>
> <rujrabhatt3@...il.com>

What's this line?

> ---
>  Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst
> b/Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst
> index 906c47f1a9e5..17652610450d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -
> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0

We want SPDX lines in our documentation files, but we have to be very
careful about adding them.  Do you know that the author of this document
meant to contribute it under that license?  They probably did, but it's
not something we can make guesses about.

>  .. _addsyscalls:
>
>  Adding a New System Call
> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ then the flags argument should include a value
> that is equivalent to setting
>  the timing window between ``xyzzy()`` and calling
>  ``fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC)``, where an unexpected ``fork()`` and
>  ``execve()`` in another thread could leak a descriptor to
> -the exec'ed program. (However, resist the temptation to re-use the actual value
> +the exec'ed program. (However, resist the temptation to reuse the actual value
>  of the ``O_CLOEXEC`` constant, as it is architecture-specific and is part of a

As a typo goes, that's pretty minor.  When the other stuff is addressed
I can apply this change as a first patch, but would suggest looking for
more substantive problems to solve thereafter.

Thanks,

jon