* [PATCH v2] docs: Explain the desired position of function attributes
@ 2021-09-30 19:24 Kees Cook
2021-09-30 20:11 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-10-01 1:16 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Kees Cook @ 2021-09-30 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet
Cc: Kees Cook, Joe Perches, Alexey Dobriyan, Nick Desaulniers,
Linus Torvalds, Randy Dunlap, Rasmus Villemoes, Andrew Morton,
linux-kernel, linux-doc, linux-hardening
While discussing how to format the addition of various function
attributes, some "unwritten rules" of ordering surfaced[1]. Capture as
close as possible to Linus's preferences for future reference.
(Though I note the dissent voiced by Joe Perches, Alexey Dobriyan, and
others that would prefer all attributes live on a separate leading line.)
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wiOCLRny5aifWNhr621kYrJwhfURsa0vFPeUEm8mF0ufg@mail.gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
index 42969ab37b34..6b4feb1c71e7 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
@@ -487,6 +487,36 @@ because it is a simple way to add valuable information for the reader.
Do not use the ``extern`` keyword with function prototypes as this makes
lines longer and isn't strictly necessary.
+When writing a function declarations, please keep the `order of elements regular
+<https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wiOCLRny5aifWNhr621kYrJwhfURsa0vFPeUEm8mF0ufg@mail.gmail.com/>`_.
+For example::
+
+ extern __init void * __must_check void action(enum magic value, size_t size,
+ u8 count, char *fmt, ...) __printf(4, 5) __malloc;
+
+The preferred order of elements for a function prototype is:
+
+- storage class (here, ``extern``, and things like ``static __always_inline`` even though
+ ``__always_inline`` is technically an attribute, it is treated like ``inline``)
+- storage class attributes (here, ``__init`` -- i.e. section declarations, but also things like ``__cold``)
+- return type (here, ``void *``)
+- return type attributes (here, ``__must_check``)
+- function name (here, ``action``)
+- function parameters (here, ``(enum magic value, size_t size, u8 count, char *fmt, ...)``, noting that parameter names should always be included)
+- function parameter attributes (here, ``__printf(4, 5)``)
+- function behavior attributes (here, ``__malloc``)
+
+Note that for a function definition (e.g. ``static inline``), the compiler does
+not allow function parameter attributes after the function parameters. In these
+cases, they should go after the storage class attributes (e.g. note the changed
+position of ``__printf(4, 5)``)::
+
+ static __always_inline __init __printf(4, 5) void * __must_check void action(
+ enum magic value, size_t size, u8 count, char *fmt, ...)
+ __malloc
+ {
+ ...
+ }
7) Centralized exiting of functions
-----------------------------------
--
2.30.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Explain the desired position of function attributes
2021-09-30 19:24 [PATCH v2] docs: Explain the desired position of function attributes Kees Cook
@ 2021-09-30 20:11 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-09-30 22:52 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-01 1:16 ` Joe Perches
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2021-09-30 20:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kees Cook, Jonathan Corbet
Cc: Joe Perches, Alexey Dobriyan, Nick Desaulniers, Linus Torvalds,
Rasmus Villemoes, Andrew Morton, linux-kernel, linux-doc,
linux-hardening
On 9/30/21 12:24 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> While discussing how to format the addition of various function
> attributes, some "unwritten rules" of ordering surfaced[1]. Capture as
> close as possible to Linus's preferences for future reference.
>
> (Though I note the dissent voiced by Joe Perches, Alexey Dobriyan, and
> others that would prefer all attributes live on a separate leading line.)
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wiOCLRny5aifWNhr621kYrJwhfURsa0vFPeUEm8mF0ufg@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> index 42969ab37b34..6b4feb1c71e7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> @@ -487,6 +487,36 @@ because it is a simple way to add valuable information for the reader.
> Do not use the ``extern`` keyword with function prototypes as this makes
> lines longer and isn't strictly necessary.
>
> +When writing a function declarations, please keep the `order of elements regular
> +<https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wiOCLRny5aifWNhr621kYrJwhfURsa0vFPeUEm8mF0ufg@mail.gmail.com/>`_.
> +For example::
> +
> + extern __init void * __must_check void action(enum magic value, size_t size,
Drop that second "void" ? or what does it mean?
Can __must_check and void be used together?
> + u8 count, char *fmt, ...) __printf(4, 5) __malloc;
> +
> +The preferred order of elements for a function prototype is:
> +
> +- storage class (here, ``extern``, and things like ``static __always_inline`` even though
> + ``__always_inline`` is technically an attribute, it is treated like ``inline``)
> +- storage class attributes (here, ``__init`` -- i.e. section declarations, but also things like ``__cold``)
> +- return type (here, ``void *``)
> +- return type attributes (here, ``__must_check``)
I'm not trying to get you to change this, but I would prefer to see
extern __init __must_check void *action(...) <attributes>;
i.e., with the return type adjacent to the function name.
> +- function name (here, ``action``)
> +- function parameters (here, ``(enum magic value, size_t size, u8 count, char *fmt, ...)``, noting that parameter names should always be included)
> +- function parameter attributes (here, ``__printf(4, 5)``)
> +- function behavior attributes (here, ``__malloc``)
> +
> +Note that for a function definition (e.g. ``static inline``), the compiler does
> +not allow function parameter attributes after the function parameters. In these
> +cases, they should go after the storage class attributes (e.g. note the changed
> +position of ``__printf(4, 5)``)::
> +
> + static __always_inline __init __printf(4, 5) void * __must_check void action(
> + enum magic value, size_t size, u8 count, char *fmt, ...)
> + __malloc
> + {
> + ...
> + }
>
> 7) Centralized exiting of functions
> -----------------------------------
>
thanks.
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Explain the desired position of function attributes
2021-09-30 20:11 ` Randy Dunlap
@ 2021-09-30 22:52 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-01 2:54 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Kees Cook @ 2021-09-30 22:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy Dunlap
Cc: Jonathan Corbet, Joe Perches, Alexey Dobriyan, Nick Desaulniers,
Linus Torvalds, Rasmus Villemoes, Andrew Morton, linux-kernel,
linux-doc, linux-hardening
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 01:11:34PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 9/30/21 12:24 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > While discussing how to format the addition of various function
> > attributes, some "unwritten rules" of ordering surfaced[1]. Capture as
> > close as possible to Linus's preferences for future reference.
> >
> > (Though I note the dissent voiced by Joe Perches, Alexey Dobriyan, and
> > others that would prefer all attributes live on a separate leading line.)
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wiOCLRny5aifWNhr621kYrJwhfURsa0vFPeUEm8mF0ufg@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > ---
> > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > index 42969ab37b34..6b4feb1c71e7 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > @@ -487,6 +487,36 @@ because it is a simple way to add valuable information for the reader.
> > Do not use the ``extern`` keyword with function prototypes as this makes
> > lines longer and isn't strictly necessary.
> > +When writing a function declarations, please keep the `order of elements regular
> > +<https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wiOCLRny5aifWNhr621kYrJwhfURsa0vFPeUEm8mF0ufg@mail.gmail.com/>`_.
> > +For example::
> > +
> > + extern __init void * __must_check void action(enum magic value, size_t size,
>
> Drop that second "void" ? or what does it mean?
> Can __must_check and void be used together?
Gah, thanks. Fixed now in v3.
>
> > + u8 count, char *fmt, ...) __printf(4, 5) __malloc;
> > +
> > +The preferred order of elements for a function prototype is:
> > +
> > +- storage class (here, ``extern``, and things like ``static __always_inline`` even though
> > + ``__always_inline`` is technically an attribute, it is treated like ``inline``)
> > +- storage class attributes (here, ``__init`` -- i.e. section declarations, but also things like ``__cold``)
> > +- return type (here, ``void *``)
> > +- return type attributes (here, ``__must_check``)
>
> I'm not trying to get you to change this, but I would prefer to see
>
> extern __init __must_check void *action(...) <attributes>;
>
> i.e., with the return type adjacent to the function name.
I have read and re-read Linus's emails, and did a frequency count in the
kernel, and it looks like the preference is [return type] [return type attrs]
but I personally agree with you. :)
# regex I built from __must_check hits...
$ re='((struct .*|void|char) \* ?|((unsigned )?(long|int)|bool|size_t)($| ))'
# type before __must_check
$ git grep -E "$re"'__must_check' | wc -l
746
# type after __must_check
$ git grep -E '\b(static (__always_)?inline )?__must_check($| '"$re"')' | wc -l
297
# type split(!) across __must_check or otherwise weird...
$ git grep -E '\b__must_check\b' | grep -Ev '\b(static (__always_)?inline )?__must_check($| '"$re"')' | grep -Ev "$re"'__must_check\b' | wc -l
44
--
Kees Cook
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Explain the desired position of function attributes
2021-09-30 19:24 [PATCH v2] docs: Explain the desired position of function attributes Kees Cook
2021-09-30 20:11 ` Randy Dunlap
@ 2021-10-01 1:16 ` Joe Perches
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2021-10-01 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kees Cook, Jonathan Corbet
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan, Nick Desaulniers, Linus Torvalds, Randy Dunlap,
Rasmus Villemoes, Andrew Morton, linux-kernel, linux-doc,
linux-hardening
On Thu, 2021-09-30 at 12:24 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> While discussing how to format the addition of various function
> attributes, some "unwritten rules" of ordering surfaced[1]. Capture as
> close as possible to Linus's preferences for future reference.
>
> (Though I note the dissent voiced by Joe Perches, Alexey Dobriyan, and
> others that would prefer all attributes live on a separate leading line.)
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wiOCLRny5aifWNhr621kYrJwhfURsa0vFPeUEm8mF0ufg@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> index 42969ab37b34..6b4feb1c71e7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> @@ -487,6 +487,36 @@ because it is a simple way to add valuable information for the reader.
> Do not use the ``extern`` keyword with function prototypes as this makes
> lines longer and isn't strictly necessary.
>
>
> +When writing a function declarations, please keep the `order of elements regular
> +<https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wiOCLRny5aifWNhr621kYrJwhfURsa0vFPeUEm8mF0ufg@mail.gmail.com/>`_.
> +For example::
> +
> + extern __init void * __must_check void action(enum magic value, size_t size,
> + u8 count, char *fmt, ...) __printf(4, 5) __malloc;
> +
Read the paragraph above. extern should not be used in an example.
> +The preferred order of elements for a function prototype is:
> +
> +- storage class (here, ``extern``, and things like ``static __always_inline`` even though
> + ``__always_inline`` is technically an attribute, it is treated like ``inline``)
> +- storage class attributes (here, ``__init`` -- i.e. section declarations, but also things like ``__cold``)
> +- return type (here, ``void *``)
> +- return type attributes (here, ``__must_check``)
> +- function name (here, ``action``)
> +- function parameters (here, ``(enum magic value, size_t size, u8 count, char *fmt, ...)``, noting that parameter names should always be included)
> +- function parameter attributes (here, ``__printf(4, 5)``)
> +- function behavior attributes (here, ``__malloc``)
> +
> +Note that for a function definition (e.g. ``static inline``), the compiler does
> +not allow function parameter attributes after the function parameters. In these
> +cases, they should go after the storage class attributes (e.g. note the changed
> +position of ``__printf(4, 5)``)::
> +
> + static __always_inline __init __printf(4, 5) void * __must_check void action(
> + enum magic value, size_t size, u8 count, char *fmt, ...)
> + __malloc
> + {
> + ...
> + }
>
>
> 7) Centralized exiting of functions
> -----------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Explain the desired position of function attributes
2021-09-30 22:52 ` Kees Cook
@ 2021-10-01 2:54 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2021-10-01 2:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kees Cook, Randy Dunlap
Cc: Jonathan Corbet, Alexey Dobriyan, Nick Desaulniers,
Linus Torvalds, Rasmus Villemoes, Andrew Morton, linux-kernel,
linux-doc, linux-hardening
On Thu, 2021-09-30 at 15:52 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> I have read and re-read Linus's emails, and did a frequency count in the
> kernel, and it looks like the preference is [return type] [return type attrs]
Please don't read too much into frequency counts as it really depends
on age of code.
> but I personally agree with you. :)
>
> # regex I built from __must_check hits...
> $ re='((struct .*|void|char) \* ?|((unsigned )?(long|int)|bool|size_t)($| ))'
>
> # type before __must_check
> $ git grep -E "$re"'__must_check' | wc -l
> 746
>
> # type after __must_check
> $ git grep -E '\b(static (__always_)?inline )?__must_check($| '"$re"')' | wc -l
> 297
Hmm.
$ git grep -w __must_check -- '*.[ch]' | wc -l
909
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-10-01 2:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-09-30 19:24 [PATCH v2] docs: Explain the desired position of function attributes Kees Cook
2021-09-30 20:11 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-09-30 22:52 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-01 2:54 ` Joe Perches
2021-10-01 1:16 ` Joe Perches
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.