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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 5 Mar 2019 13:00:41 -0800
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Louis Taylor <louis@...gniz.eu>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        pmladek@...e.com, geert+renesas@...der.be,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        Jon Flatley <jflat@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: add extra integer types to printk-formats

On 3/5/19 11:59 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 09:59 -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 12:10 PM Andy Shevchenko
>> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> 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"

Yeah, I don't think that all of the "standard" types/formats need
to be in there.  Just the differences.

>> 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
> 
> 


-- 
~Randy

Powered by blists - more mailing lists