Re: [RFC PATCH] security: <linux/lsm_hooks.h>: fix all kernel-doc warnings

[Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>]

On 2/16/20 2:08 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> 
> Fix all kernel-doc warnings in <linux/lsm_hooks.h>.
> Fixes the following warnings:
> 
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'quotactl' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'quota_on' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'sb_free_mnt_opts' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'sb_eat_lsm_opts' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'sb_kern_mount' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'sb_show_options' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'sb_add_mnt_opt' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'd_instantiate' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'getprocattr' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'setprocattr' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'locked_down' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'perf_event_open' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'perf_event_alloc' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'perf_event_free' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'perf_event_read' not described in 'security_list_options'
> ../include/linux/lsm_hooks.h:1830: warning: Function parameter or member 'perf_event_write' not described in 'security_list_options'
> 
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> Cc: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> Cc: Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org>
> Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
> Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
> Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
> Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>
> Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> Cc: Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@nttdata.co.jp>
> Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---
> Notes:
> a. The location for some of these might need to be modified.
> b. 'locked_down' was just missing a final ':'.
> c. Added a new section: Security hooks for perf events.
> 
>   include/linux/lsm_hooks.h |   36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- lnx-56-rc1.orig/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> +++ lnx-56-rc1/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> @@ -136,6 +140,10 @@
>    *	@sb superblock being remounted
>    *	@data contains the filesystem-specific data.
>    *	Return 0 if permission is granted.
> + * @sb_kern_mount:
> + * 	Mount this @sb if allowed by permissions.
> + * @sb_show_options:
> + * 	Show (print on @m) mount options for this @sb.
>    * @sb_umount:
>    *	Check permission before the @mnt file system is unmounted.
>    *	@mnt contains the mounted file system.

Thanks for doing this.  Note that some of the existing kernel-doc 
comments for these hooks include a separate line describing each 
parameter (not just embedded in the function description) and a line 
describing the return value.  Is that optional for kernel-doc? 
Obviously what you have added here is an improvement, just wondering 
whether it suffices or needs further augmentation.