linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] printk, locking/atomics, kref: Introduce new %pAr and %pAk format string options for atomic

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:13:55 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, elena.reshetova@...el.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, dave@...gbits.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk, locking/atomics, kref: Introduce new %pAr and
 %pAk format string options for atomic_t and 'struct kref'


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> > +atomic variables such atomic_t or struct kref:
> > +
> > +       %pAr    atomic_t count
> > +       %pAk    struct kref count
> 
> Not a huge fan. That "r" makes sense to you ("raw" atomic), but it
> makes no sense to a user. An atomic isn't "raw" to anybody else. It's
> just an atomic.

So in the latestest patch this has evolved to:

        %pAa - print the 'atomic_t'    count in decimal
        %pAk - print the 'struct kref' count in decimal
        %pAr - print the 'refcount_t'  count in decimal

... are you still hating it?

> Also, we have 'atomic64_t", which this doesn't cover at all.

We could use a somewhat logical letter for atomic64_t too:

	%pAA - print the 'atomic64_t'  count in decimal

... as 'A' is the bigger version of 'a', just like atomic64_t is the bigger 
version of atomic_t! ;-)

> I'd suggest just %pA, %pA64, %pAkref or something. Which leaves us the
> choice to add more atomic versions later without having to make up
> random one-letter things that make no sense.

It's a bit more work, but we could do that too, if you still don't like the above 
single letter abbreviations.

Thanks,

	Ingo