linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.21-rc1] Extend print

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:24:34 -0600
From:	Robert Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>
To:	Paulo Marques <pmarques@...popie.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.21-rc1] Extend print_symbol capability

Paulo Marques wrote:
> I don't like this name much :(
>
> We already have kallsyms_lookup and kallsyms_lookup_name. The name of 
> this function should imply that it will print the formatted result 
> into the buffer, not just lookup a symbol.
>
> Maybe "__sprint_symbol", and change the interface to 
> "__sprint_symbol(char *buffer, unsigned long addr)"?
I'm not sure I like the leading __.  In the print_symbol case, I think 
the function
was given a leading __ so that code referencing print_symbol would use the
macro which formulates the call into __print_symbol.  I don't mind 
sprint_symbol
though.  Since Andrew Morton included the patch, I'll defer to his judgment.
>> +static inline void lookup_symbol(unsigned long addr, char *buffer)
>> +{
>> +       return NULL;
>> +}
> Returning NULL in a function returning "void" doesn't seem right :P
You're right.  This should just be a simple "return;".  My bad.  Good catch.
Since Andrew Morton has already included this patch, I'll let him
make this change if he sees fit.

Regards,

Bob Peterson
Red Hat Cluster Suite

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/