[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150616223700.GA26982@d1stkfactory>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:37:00 -0700
From: Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: trivial@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/22] pstore: %pF is only for function pointers
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 03:02:50PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com> wrote:
> > Use %pS for actual addresses, otherwise you'll get bad output
> > on arches like ppc64 where %pF expects a function descriptor.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
...
> > - seq_printf(s, "%d %08lx %08lx %pf <- %pF\n",
> > + seq_printf(s, "%d %08lx %08lx %ps <- %pS\n",
...
> Anton, does this look okay to you? (i.e. switching from function
> pointer to direct pointer?) vsprintf docs say:
> * Note: The difference between 'S' and 'F' is that on ia64 and ppc64
> * function pointers are really function descriptors, which contain a
> * pointer to the real address.
>
> So this seems correct to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Without questioning the confusing behaviour of "%pF", yes, sure... ack. :)
(However, intuitively I'd expect %pF to behave like %pS... but this surely not
going to change...)
Thanks!
Anton
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists