linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5 v2] x86 boot: show pfn addresses in hex not decimal in some kernel info printks

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: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0806250813030.4733@hp.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
cc:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, hpa@...or.com, yhlu.kernel@...il.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
	steiner@....com, travis@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ying.huang@...el.com, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5 v2] x86 boot: show pfn addresses in hex not decimal
 in some kernel info printks

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 
> In networking, we've gone through various incarnations of print_mac()
> which is similar to the sym() macro Paul proposed, and it turned out to
> be undesirable because of the way it interacts with static inlines that
> only optionally contain code at all, the print_mac() function call is
> still emitted by the compiler. People experimented with marking it
> __pure but that had other problems.

You don't even have to go that esoteric.

Just printing things like "sector_t" or "u64" is painful, because the 
exact type depends on config options and/or architecture.

> It would be nice to be able to say
> 
> u8 *eaddr;
> 
> printk(... %M ..., eaddr);

For special things, I do think we should extend the format more, and 
forget about single-character names. It would be lovely to do them as
%[mac], %[u64], %[symbol] or similar. Because once you don't rely on gcc 
checking the string, you can do it.

The problem is that right now we absolutely _do_ rely on gcc checking the 
string, and as such we're forced to use standard patterns, and standard 
patterns _only_. And that means that %M isn't an option, but also that if 
we want symbolic names we'd have to use %p, and not some extension.

But once you drop the 'standard patterns' requirement, I do think you 
should drop it _entirely_, and not just extend it with some pissant 
single-character unreadable mess.

				Linus
--
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/