Re: Proposed documentation patch to security.h

From: David Wagner (dawat_private)
Date: Wed Oct 31 2001 - 16:20:30 PST

  • Next message: Valdis.Kletnieksat_private: "Re: Proposed documentation patch to security.h"

    Greg KH  wrote:
    >I don't like the locking information, as it too will quickly go out of
    >date.  I'd rather just refer people to the kernel locking document that
    >someone at IBM is keeping, which details the placement of all kernel
    The folks at IBM document under what contexts foo() can be called, not how
    it was intended to be called.  The latter is useful to have as comments:
    if foo() is only intended to be called with lock L enabled, this is
    useful to have commented, as one would hope that everyone who calls foo()
    will read this documentation and make sure they have L enabled.
    The drawback of the IBM document is that, if anyone calls foo() without
    L enabled, the IBM document will say that foo() can be called with or
    without L enabled, which would be a correct characterization of the code
    but not what was intended.
    In other words, I would argue that prescriptive conditions are useful
    to have commented, but the descriptive observations can be left to IBM.
    (I speculate that few -- if any -- hooks have prescriptive preconditions.)
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 17:04:51 PST