From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Explain the desired position of function attributes
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:52:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202109301530.4BAFDBB1@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c273a5d9-ecd7-64fa-bf2c-af0d22c4a68c@infradead.org>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-30 22:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
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 [this message]
2021-10-01 2:54 ` Joe Perches
2021-10-01 1:16 ` Joe Perches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202109301530.4BAFDBB1@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).