linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: add pF/pf deprecation warning

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: <1505931868.12311.7.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:24:28 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@...isc-linux.org>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: add pF/pf deprecation warning

On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 19:53 +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
> On 20.09.2017 19:38, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 01:29 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > We deprecated '%pF/%pf' printk specifiers, since '%pS/%ps' is now smart
> > > enough to handle function pointer dereference on platforms where such
> > > dereference is required.
> > > 
> > > checkpatch warning example:
> > > 
> > > WARNING: Use '%pS/%ps' instead. This pointer extension was deprecated: '%pF'
> > 
> > If this series is accepted,  I think this message
> > is unclear and would prefer something like:
> 
> Is it worth to mention, that it's still needed in older kernels?
> Just in case some patch get's backported.

I think probably not.

There are relatively few references and
modifications are unlikely to be backported.