linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] Fix wrong %pF and %pS printk format specifier usages

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: <20170914064405.GC599@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2017 15:44:05 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:     Helge Deller <deller@....de>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Fix wrong %pF and %pS printk format specifier
 usages

Hi,

On (09/08/17 22:49), Helge Deller wrote:
[..]
> Sergey, I'm sure there is a way how you can get it somehow to work the way
> you describe above, but even then nobody can guarantee you that it
> will work in 100% of the cases.
> 
> It's somehow like "we have %lu and %c specifiers, and it's basically 
> the same, so let's try to figure out at runtime which one should be
> used based on analysis of what was given as argument".
> It may work somehow, but not always.
> 
> What about the idea of a %luS specifier (or something other) ?

the idea is to have less format specifiers ;)

%pF/%pf is a subtle ABI detail, which made it to API.

I'm OK to keep %pf/%pF, if we won't be able to improve %ps/%pS.
otherwise, I'd prefer to get rid of it.

	-ss