linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm: drm_printer: add _

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: <87a89gkl09.fsf@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:26:14 +0200
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@...tec.com>
Cc:     Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: drm_printer: add __printf validation

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 12:17 +0000, Eric Engestrom wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 2017-02-15 15:33:18 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > drm_printf does not currently use the compiler to verify
>> > format and arguments.  Make it do so.
>> > 
>> > Miscellanea:
>> > 
>> > o Add appropriate #include files for __printf and struct va_format
>> > o Convert dev_printk to dev_info
>> 
>> I think these unrelated changes should be in 4 patches:
>> 1 - add annotation to check the format string against the arguments
>>     (linux/compiler.h should be added here)
>> 2 - add missing linux/printk.h header for struct va_format
>>     Note that I think a forward declaration is more appropriate here, as
>>     we only use pointers to this struct in this file, we never try to
>>     look inside. On the other hand:
>> 3 - drm_print.c needs the header in drm_printf(), but as a separate
>>     patch
>> 4 - convert dev_printk to dev_info (you need to include linux/device.h
>>     there)
>
> I am not a big fan of making trivial patches into a series.

It's standard procedure in kernel development to split out unrelated
changes into individual patches, regardless of whether you think they
are trivial or not. Four is probably excessive, but you get the idea.

>> You can add my r-b on all four patches when you send them to the list :)
>
> If you want to break it up, go ahead.

You know how this stuff works, please split it up to get the stuff
merged.


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center