From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C287C433FE for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:24:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14AE561178 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:24:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233156AbhIVHZn (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 03:25:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41752 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229697AbhIVHZm (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 03:25:42 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x42a.google.com (mail-wr1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7EC3C061574; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 00:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id q26so3851814wrc.7; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 00:24:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=ULwoOoLedOT4q7QVhiTfuMRJL+g42ZvtZLso5l9rgRY=; b=mUlp7aX+AbdUf8t/iQV/vo+r+mLJL7e/qWLY5UNFxABQv07ML9RXYBeZJycroCNdrR nYqG8tfJNFkuYOKW7WlHBnUezqqFkQm6K2/RL7B5j6WkSLS2dd9haJUPR7b68uFYvD7l cf6CwkVU6sbzGdkiCGVfWCxXT+7Y7vrvJn2egaqCe8EZh/dIzwW49U7MAhoDlLDyFEa9 /Ei39y5F+UyjybB7Q9cpWd2Q6+0d9cb91L8CA8CmHMZjy9/vqoaBmYtJC/p07wHjP9YF RYRsfAr2TTDhFqYCSbgbhUy4e7sfreV6a3CbA8FMQAjssbh8X1sBd2QpADRdQJk6wxdf kdsQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=ULwoOoLedOT4q7QVhiTfuMRJL+g42ZvtZLso5l9rgRY=; b=155DDb5nrqNj8KINtGqgJKJ0+f/OhHj4MrDstaaiEPfQgpEvqj/Oj9fiAhGgcBhM6q xgNngNPfn3ytPpMq9uQ1uG/5gZNKytRjLl/qJz/StPzFNwgKdRT9xmNQBWRxkN1xtuH9 OkfQTVgD1ERLXOYazLi0fdV2j54bHKNdZatkskMjb9woTxkh2Ihf6hGhd/RImvDCRk1k BHxm4cHqzHQdfBYmZX+zkMdBqe3sDkgUgIOA0XW3VbVZgHcUoLe+KsANNGGz132v22A0 JImTnABKF9M61iYxyIlGlv6zHiVymeKgCyiLcTI835vkAsvd3K9cN1cUFJGecpwFaWSG cPpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531lyuTCiCWte8jlj0s+fCVq0hFHSYwO4Gv7xgcYBQyAhnQs2sR1 /3+uyYPpLY6PxX4QW2VCkcRxSsRAXHy0 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy7HsSVUaQeuyvJ6ZcmsmbeD912UQv/jB8HzcSjxN589QnfzOcYK9boFdHVuTUAqmqTwGDiZw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:a745:: with SMTP id e5mr28910852wrd.406.1632295451096; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 00:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([46.53.252.100]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s10sm1309856wrg.42.2021.09.22.00.24.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 00:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 10:24:08 +0300 From: Alexey Dobriyan To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Linus Torvalds , Joe Perches , Andrew Morton , apw@canonical.com, Christoph Lameter , Daniel Micay , Dennis Zhou , dwaipayanray1@gmail.com, Joonsoo Kim , Linux-MM , Lukas Bulwahn , mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers , Miguel Ojeda , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Tejun Heo , Vlastimil Babka , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: function prototype element ordering Message-ID: References: <20210909200948.090d4e213ca34b5ad1325a7e@linux-foundation.org> <20210910031046.G76dQvPhV%akpm@linux-foundation.org> <202109211630.2D00627@keescook> <202109211757.F38DF644@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <202109211757.F38DF644@keescook> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: mm-commits@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 07:25:53PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 04:45:44PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 16:37 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:23:48AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 8:10 PM Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +__alloc_size(1) > > > > >  extern void *vmalloc(unsigned long size); > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > All of these are added in the wrong place - inconsistent with the very > > > > compiler documentation the patches add. > > > > > > > > The function attributes are generally added _after_ the function, > > > > although admittedly we've been quite confused here before. > > > > > > > > But the very compiler documentation you point to in the patch that > > > > adds these macros gives that as the examples both for gcc and clang: > > > > > > > > + * gcc: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#index-alloc_005fsize-function-attribute > > > > + * clang: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#alloc-size > > > > > > > > and honestly I think that is the preferred format because this is > > > > about the *function*, not about the return type. > > > > > > > > Do both placements work? Yes. > > > > > > I'm cleaning this up now, and have discovered that the reason for the > > > before-function placement is consistency with static inlines. If I do this: > > > > > > static __always_inline void * kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags) __alloc_size(1) > > > { > > > ... > > > } > > > > > > GCC is very angry: > > > > > > ./include/linux/slab.h:519:1: error: attributes should be specified before the declarator in a function definition > > >   519 | static __always_inline void *kmalloc_large(size_t size, gfp_t flags) __alloc_size(1) > > >       | ^~~~~~ > > > > > > It's happy if I treat it as a "return type attribute" in the ordering, > > > though: > > > > > > static __always_inline void * __alloc_size(1) kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags) > > > > > > I'll do that unless you have a preference for somewhere else... > > > > _please_ put it before the return type on a separate line. > > > > [__attributes] > > [static inline const] function() > > Somehow Linus wasn't in CC. :P > > Linus, what do you want here? I keep getting conflicting (or > uncompilable) advice. I'm also trying to prepare a patch for > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst ... > > Looking through what was written before[1] and through examples in the > source tree, I find the following categories: > > 1- storage class: static extern inline __always_inline > 2- storage class attributes/hints/???: __init __cold > 3- return type: void * > 4- return type attributes: __must_check __noreturn __assume_aligned(n) > 5- function attributes: __attribute_const__ __malloc > 6- function argument attributes: __printf(n, m) __alloc_size(n) > > Everyone seems to basically agree on: > > [storage class] [return type] [return type attributes] [name]([arg1type] [arg1name], ...) > > There is a lot of disagreement over where 5 and 6 should fit in above. And > there is a lot of confusion over 4 (mixed between before and after the > function name) and 2 (see below). > > What's currently blocking me is that 6 cannot go after the function > (for definitions) because it angers GCC (see quoted bit above), but 5 > can (e.g. __attribute_const__). > > Another inconsistency seems to be 2 (mainly section markings like > __init). Sometimes it's after the storage class and sometimes after the > return type, but it certainly feels more like a storage class than a > return type attribute: > > $ git grep 'static __init int' | wc -l > 349 > $ git grep 'static int __init' | wc -l > 8402 > > But it's clearly positioned like a return type attribute in most of the > tree. What's correct? > > Regardless, given the constraints above, it seems like what Linus may > want is (on "one line", though it will get wrapped in pathological cases > like kmem_cache_alloc_node_trace): > > [storage class] [storage class attributes] [return type] [return type attributes] [function argument attributes] [name]([arg1type] [arg1name], ...) [function attributes] > > Joe appears to want (on two lines): > > [storage class attributes] [function attributes] [function argument attributes] > [storage class] [return type] [return type attributes] [name]([arg1type] [arg1name], ...) > > I would just like to have an arrangement that won't get NAKed by > someone. ;) And I'm willing to document it. :) Attributes should be on their own line, they can be quite lengthy. __attribute__((...)) [static] [inline] T f(A1 arg1, ...) { ... } There will be even more attributes in the future, both added by compilers and developers (const, pure, WUR), so let's make "prototype lane" for them. Same for structures: __attribute__((packed)) struct S { }; Kernel practice of hiding attributes under defines (__ro_after_init) breaks ctags which parses the last identifier before semicolon as object name. Naturally, it is ctags bug, but placing attributes before declaration will autmatically unbreak such cases.