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  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]
Date:   Tue, 05 Mar 2019 11:59:30 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>
Cc:     Louis Taylor <>, Jonathan Corbet <>,,,, LKML <>,,
        Jon Flatley <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: add extra integer types to printk-formats

On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 09:59 -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 12:10 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 12:36:47PM +0000, Louis Taylor wrote:
> > > A few commonly used integer types were absent from this table, so add
> > > them.
> > 
> > I'm not against the patch, but isn't obvious by reading POSIX and / or man
> > printf(3)?
> You'd think; but based on the sheer number of -Wformat warnings
> (~450), I'm not so sure.

<shrug>  software defects are always present.

Many of the -Wformat warnings are bogus too.

There's nothing wrong with using %x for a unsigned int
of less than long size. (u8/u16)

>   At least with this patch they're "above the
> fold."

I'd personally go with
"posix plus kernel specific deletions and extensions"

> The kernel also has its own format flag extensions, and does not
> implement %n (for good reason), so it's better to be explicit than
> imply posix or glibc compat.

%i is also supported and used a few hundred times

Powered by blists - more mailing lists