linux-kernel - Re: RFC: introduce struct ksymbol

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20090418160910.GA6212@nowhere>
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:09:12 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>,
	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: introduce struct ksymbol

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:55:33AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 20:21 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: 
> > On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:28:39 pm Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Why not 'struct ksym'? That name is unused right now, it is shorter 
> > > and just as descriptive.
> > > 
> > > Regarding the change... dunno. Sam, Rusty - what do you think?
> > 
> > Yes, ksym is nice.  But agree with you that it's marginal obfuscation
> > to wrap it in a struct.
> > 
> > The current symbol printing APIs are awful; we should address them first
> > (like the %pF patch does) IMHO.
> 
> I suggest just %pS<type>
> 
> With %pS, struct ksym is probably not all that
> useful unless it's for something like a sscanf.
> 
> Today there are these symbol uses:
> name, offset, size, modname
> 
> So perhaps %pS<foo> where foo is any combination of:
> 
> n name
> o offset
> s size
> m modname
> a all
> 
> and if not specified is a name lookup ("%pSn").


Joe,

It seems to me a rather good idea, it offers a good granularity
about what has to displayed.

The only problem is the end result:

%pSnosm, %pSno, %pSosm, ...

One could end up stuck reading such a format, trying
to guess if the developer wanted to print the symbol +
"nosm" or something...

But since I don't see any point in printing nosm directly after
a symbol... :)

I like this.

Anyone? Any doubt?



> 
> 

--
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/