linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] net/ipv4, net/ipv6: use %#p6, %p6 format strings

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: <1225172104.5526.28.camel@brick>
Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:35:03 -0700
From:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] net/ipv4, net/ipv6: use %#p6, %p6 format
 strings

On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 22:05 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 21:05 -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> > index eea9542..113c4d9 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> > @@ -2986,9 +2986,8 @@ static void if6_seq_stop(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
> >  static int if6_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
> >  {
> >  	struct inet6_ifaddr *ifp = (struct inet6_ifaddr *)v;
> > -	seq_printf(seq,
> > -		   NIP6_SEQFMT " %02x %02x %02x %02x %8s\n",
> > -		   NIP6(ifp->addr),
> > +	seq_printf(seq, "%#p6 %02x %02x %02x %02x %8s\n",
> > +		   &ifp->addr,
> >  		   ifp->idev->dev->ifindex,
> >  		   ifp->prefix_len,
> >  		   ifp->scope,
> 
> Is it really necessary to change the formats and arguments?

Yes, in my patchset %p6 was a format for a pointer whereas NIP6()
expected a struct in6_addr, not a pointer to one.  Unless you were
referring specifically to alignment of the args, whitespace?

> 
> Perhaps it's enough to change the defines to:
> 
> #define NIP6_FMT "%6p"

I thought about this, and it will work if the one place that passes
NIP6_FMT into sscanf gets changed at the same time.  Otherwise,
doing it in-place is probably safer.

> If not, I think the NIP6 and NIP6_SEQFMT should be
> separate patchsets for ease of verification.
> 

OK, will separate it that way once I've had a chance to test this
more.

Cheers,

Harvey

--
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/