[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180405144602.qnpwoxinepgnjhds@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 16:46:02 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
"Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] vsprintf: Consistent %pK handling for
kptr_restrict == 0
On Thu 2018-04-05 16:04:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:58 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > restricted_pointer() pretends that it prints the address when
> > kptr_restrict
> > is set to zero. But it is never called in this situation. Instead,
> > pointer() falls back to ptr_to_id() and hashes the pointer.
> >
> > This patch removes the potential confusion. klp_restrict is checked
> > only
> > in restricted_pointer().
> >
>
>
> > /* Maps a pointer to a 32 bit unique identifier. */
> > -static char *ptr_to_id(char *buf, char *end, void *ptr, struct
> > printf_spec spec)
> > +static char *ptr_to_id(char *buf, char *end,
> > + const void *ptr, struct printf_spec spec)
>
> I don't think this change belongs to the patch.
The const should have been there from the beginning. I have found it
because this patch added a call to ptr_to_id() which had the const
and compiler warned about cast problems.
IMHO, it is rather cosmetic change.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists