linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] e2fsck: map PROMPT

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]

Message-ID: <20211211005111.GC69182@magnolia>
Date:   Fri, 10 Dec 2021 16:51:11 -0800
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsck: map PROMPT_* values to prompt messages

On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 02:55:26PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2021, at 9:42 AM, Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 12:51:12AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> >> It isn't totally clear when searching the code for PROMPT_*
> >> constants from problem codes where these messages come from.
> >> Similarly, there isn't a direct mapping from the prompt string
> >> to the constant.
> >> 
> >> Add comments that make this mapping more clear.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
> >> ---
> >> e2fsck/problem.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.c b/e2fsck/problem.c
> >> index 757b5d56..2d02468c 100644
> >> --- a/e2fsck/problem.c
> >> +++ b/e2fsck/problem.c
> >> @@ -50,29 +50,29 @@
> >>  * to fix a problem.
> >>  */
> >> static const char *prompt[] = {
> >> -	N_("(no prompt)"),	/* 0 */
> >> -	N_("Fix"),		/* 1 */
> >> -	N_("Clear"),		/* 2 */
> >> -	N_("Relocate"),		/* 3 */
> >> -	N_("Allocate"),		/* 4 */
> >> -	N_("Expand"),		/* 5 */
> >> -	N_("Connect to /lost+found"), /* 6 */
> >> -	N_("Create"),		/* 7 */
> >> -	N_("Salvage"),		/* 8 */
> >> -	N_("Truncate"),		/* 9 */
> >> -	N_("Clear inode"),	/* 10 */
> >> -	N_("Abort"),		/* 11 */
> >> -	N_("Split"),		/* 12 */
> >> -	N_("Continue"),		/* 13 */
> >> -	N_("Clone multiply-claimed blocks"), /* 14 */
> >> -	N_("Delete file"),	/* 15 */
> >> -	N_("Suppress messages"),/* 16 */
> >> -	N_("Unlink"),		/* 17 */
> >> -	N_("Clear HTree index"),/* 18 */
> >> -	N_("Recreate"),		/* 19 */
> >> -	N_("Optimize"),		/* 20 */
> >> -	N_("Clear flag"),	/* 21 */
> >> -	"",			/* 22 */
> >> +	N_("(no prompt)"),			/* PROMPT_NONE		=  0 */
> > 
> > Why not make it even clearer and mismerge proof:
> > 
> > static const char *prompt[] = {
> > 	[0]		= N_("(no prompt")),	/* null value test */
> > 	[PROMPT_FIX]	= N_("Fix"),		/* 1 */
> > 	[PROMPT_CLEAR]	= N_("Clear"),		/* 2 */
> > 	...
> > };
> 
> I thought about that too, but then I thought the "[index] = foo" designated
> initializer is GNU or at least C99-specific, and I wondered if that was
> going to cause portability problems for some ancient system that e2fsprogs
> is building on...  I figured adding comments is relatively safe, and these
> values change so rarely that more complexity in the patch was not a win.

<shrug> Yeah, I thought it was safe enough to use -std=gnu90 features,
but I guess it's really up to Ted to decide if he'd prefer a structural
fix or not.  Evidently this syntax is /still/ being argued in the C++
committees, which ... yay. :(

--D

> Cheers, Andreas
> 
> 
> 
> 
>