linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/9] vsprintf: Factor out %pV handler as va

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: <20180409114455.6wt6zvn6dzlgyhvp@pathway.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 9 Apr 2018 13:44:55 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        "Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>,
        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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/9] vsprintf: Factor out %pV handler as va_format()

On Fri 2018-04-06 07:19:15, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-04-06 at 15:12 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Wed 2018-04-04 07:26:07, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:58 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > Move the code from the long pointer() function. We are going to add a check
> > > > for the access to the address that will make it even more complicated.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch does not change the existing behavior.
> > > 
> > > But it might increase stack consumption.
> > > 
> > > As the %pV is recursive, this is may not be a good thing.
> > 
> > It seems to be safe to pass just a pointer to struct printf_spec.
> > In fact, it would make sense to use this also in string() and
> > __string() calls. Copying 64 bytes many times look useless.
> 
> huh?
> 
> struct printf_spec is 64 bits, the same size as a
> pointer on 64 bit systems.

Yes, it was a nonsense. It was late Friday here when I wrote it.


> I'm dubious about this entire patch series.

I would appreciate some constructive feedback.
What exactly is wrong? What you would suggest instead?

Best Regards,
Petr