linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: wmi: Fix printing info about WDG structure

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, 9 Jun 2017 12:29:35 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
Cc:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: wmi: Fix printing info about WDG structure

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 June 2017 08:16:18 Darren Hart wrote:
>> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:49:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com> wrote:
>> > > On Saturday 27 May 2017 15:33:14 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > >> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Okay, got it. But on your opinion does it make sense to do
>> > >>
>> > >> pr_info("\tobject_id: %2pE\n", g->object_id);
>> > >>
>> > >> instead?
>> > >>
>> > >> For ASCII it will go as is previously, otherwise escaping would be
>> > >> done.
>> > >
>> > > Both is OK for me. Do you want to send a new patch with %2pE?
>> >
>> > To me it looks slightly cleaner.
>>
>> I don't want to let this one fall through the cracks. Pali, is a new one coming?
>
> So.. which modifier to use? Andy already proposed two alternatives and
> basically I'm fine all 3 which are in this thread.

I would go with %2pE.
Rationale:
 - we are not going to change size
 - E is just a guard against _possible_ broken data

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko