linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: drop comment claiming %n is ignored

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]

Date:	Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:26:00 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	keescook@...omium.org, linux@...izon.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, eldad@...refinery.com, jbeulich@...e.com,
	jkosina@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rdunlap@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: drop comment claiming %n is ignored

On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 05:53 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> The bottom line: most of these guys could as well return void; we have
> few overflow checks and those could be made explicit.  As it is,
> "return -1 on overflow" had been a mistake.

What do you think of adding last_ret and last_len to
struct seq_file?  Is there any case where it's racy?

I haven't noticed one, but dunno.

Another option might be to use something like:

struct seq_rtn {
	int rtn;
	size_t len;
}

as the return for all the seq_<foo> funcs.


--
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/