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]
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