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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAP01T77j2Lm7RgKoi0XwgpX_vLgoO1Lfr1E9mxYMVxCGM9L9Cg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 20:45:23 +0200 From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com> To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 05/13] bpf: Add documentation for kfuncs On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 at 19:03, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote: > > Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com> writes: > > > As the usage of kfuncs grows, we are starting to form consensus on the > > kinds of attributes and annotations that kfuncs can have. To better help > > developers make sense of the various options available at their disposal > > to present an unstable API to the BPF users, document the various kfunc > > flags and annotations, their expected usage, and explain the process of > > defining and registering a kfunc set. > > [...] > > > +2.4.2 KF_RET_NULL flag > > +---------------------- > > + > > +The KF_RET_NULL flag is used to indicate that the pointer returned by the kfunc > > +may be NULL. Hence, it forces the user to do a NULL check on the pointer > > +returned from the kfunc before making use of it (dereferencing or passing to > > +another helper). This flag is often used in pairing with KF_ACQUIRE flag, but > > +both are mutually exclusive. > > That last sentence is contradicting itself. "Mutually exclusive" means > "can't be used together". I think you mean "orthogonal" or something to > that effect? Right, my bad. Mutually exclusive is totally incorrect here. I will use 'orthogonal' instead. > > -Toke >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists