netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: ti: icssg-prueth: Fix race condition for VLAN table access

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: <a5fbbde6-8f77-47b9-a7dc-566d8e082e15@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 10:43:55 +0530
From: "Anwar, Md Danish" <a0501179@...com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
CC: MD Danish Anwar <danishanwar@...com>, <robh@...nel.org>,
        <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>, <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
        <diogo.ivo@...mens.com>, <andrew@...n.ch>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <edumazet@...gle.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <srk@...com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Roger Quadros
	<rogerq@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: ti: icssg-prueth: Fix race condition for VLAN
 table access



On 10/5/2024 1:37 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 11:46:10 +0100 Simon Horman wrote:
>>> 1. Move the documentation to kdoc - This is will result in checkpatch
>>> 2. Keep the documentation in kdoc as well as inline - This will result
>>> in no warnings but duplicate documentation which I don't think is good.
>>>
>>> I was not sure which one takes more precedence check patch or kdoc, thus
>>> put it inline thinking fixing checkpatch might have more weightage.
>>>
>>> Let me know what should be done here.  
>>
>> FWIIW, my preference would be for option 2.
> 
> Of the two options I'd pick 1, perhaps due to my deeply seated
> "disappointment" in the quality of checkpatch warnings :)
> Complaining about missing comment when there's a kdoc is a false
> positive in my book. But option 2 works, too.
> 
> I haven't tested it but there's also the option 3 - providing 
> the kdoc inline, something like:
> 
> +	/** @vtbl_lock: Lock for vtbl in shared memory */
> +	spinlock_t vtbl_lock;
> 

Hi Jakub, I tested this and option 3 works. I don't see either kdoc or
checkpatch warning. I will go ahead and re spin the patch with option 3.

> Again, no strong preference on which option you choose.
> kdoc warnings may get emitted during builds so we should avoid them.

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Md Danish Anwar