linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvme: fix eui

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: <20171103151351.GB11300@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:13:51 -0600
From:   Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Javier González <jg@...htnvm.io>,
        sagi@...mberg.me, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Javier González <javier@...xlabs.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvme: fix eui_show() print format

On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 01:55:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 11:02:50AM +0100, Javier González wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Javier González <javier@...xlabs.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/nvme/host/core.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
> > index ae8ab0a1ef0d..f05c81774abf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
> > @@ -2108,7 +2108,7 @@ static ssize_t eui_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> >  								char *buf)
> >  {
> >  	struct nvme_ns *ns = nvme_get_ns_from_dev(dev);
> > -	return sprintf(buf, "%8phd\n", ns->eui);
> > +	return sprintf(buf, "%8phD\n", ns->eui);
> >  }
> >  static DEVICE_ATTR(eui, S_IRUGO, eui_show, NULL);
> 
> This looks correct.  I wonder what the old code printed - does someone
> have a device with an EUI-64 at hand to quickly cross check what we
> did before?

It just prints the same as the 'ph' format, which would look like this:

  01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

The change will make it look like this:

  01-02-03-04-05-06-07-08

I think that was the original intention.

Reviewed-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>