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  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]
Date:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 13:09:02 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: format fixes for BPF helpers and
 bpftool documentation

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 7:48 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/09/2020 22:40, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:15 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This series contains minor fixes (or harmonisation edits) for the
> >> bpftool-link documentation (first patch) and BPF helpers documentation
> >> (last two patches), so that all related man pages can build without errors.
> >>
> >> Quentin Monnet (3):
> >>   tools: bpftool: fix formatting in bpftool-link documentation
> >>   bpf: fix formatting in documentation for BPF helpers
> >>   tools, bpf: synchronise BPF UAPI header with tools
> >>
> >>  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h                      | 87 ++++++++++---------
> >>  .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-link.rst    |  2 +-
> >>  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h                | 87 ++++++++++---------
> >>  3 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.20.1
> >>
> >
> > This obviously looks good to me:
> >
> > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
> >
> > But do you think we can somehow prevent issues like this? Consider
> > adding building/testing of documentation to selftests or something.
> > Not sure if that will catch all the issues you've fixed, but that
> > would be a good start.
> >
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> As for preventing future issues, I see two cases. Some minor fixes done
> to harmonise the look of the description for the different helpers could
> be checked with some kind of dedicated checkpatch-like script that would
> validate new helpers I suppose, but I'm not sure whether that's worth
> the trouble of creating that script, creating rules and then enforcing them.
>
> The issues that do raise warnings are more important to fix, and easier
> to detect. We could simply build bpftool's documentation (which also
> happens to build the doc for eBPF helpers) and checks for warnings. We
> already have a script to test bpftool build in the selftests, so I can
> add it there as a follow-up and make doc build fail on warnings.

Yeah, that would be good. I constantly forget to try building
documentation for bpftool, so having this automated would be an
improvement (provided building docs doesn't require unreasonable
dependencies).

>
> On a somewhat related note I also started to work on a script to check
> that bpftool is correctly sync'ed (with kernel regarding prog names /
> map names etc., and between source code / doc / bash completion) but I
> haven't found the time to finish that work yet.
>
> Quentin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists