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  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:   Fri, 22 Mar 2019 15:53:50 +0200
From:   Sakari Ailus <>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        scsi <>,
        Linux PM list <>,
        Linux MMC List <>,
        "" <>,,,,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <>,
        netdev <>,
        linux-btrfs <>,
        linux-pci <>,
        sparclinux <>,,
        ceph-devel <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Linux MM <>,
        Linux ARM <>,
        Lars Ellenberg <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove support for deprecated %pf and %pF in vsprintf

Hi Geert,

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 02:37:18PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:25 PM Sakari Ailus
> <> wrote:
> > The printk family of functions supports %ps and %pS conversion specifiers
> > to print function names. Yet the deprecated %pf and %pF conversion
> > specifiers with equivalent functionality remain supported. A number of
> > users of %pf and %pF remain.
> >
> > This patchsets converts the existing users of %pf and %pF to %ps and %pS,
> > respectively, and removes support for the deprecated %pf and %pF.
> >
> > The patches apply cleanly both on 5.1-rc1 as well as on Linux-next. No new
> > %pf or %pF users have been added in the meantime so the patch is
> > sufficient as itself on linux-next, too.
> Do you know in which commit they became deprecated, so the backporters
> know how far this can be backported safely?

That appears to be 04b8eb7a4ccd
("symbol lookup: introduce dereference_symbol_descriptor()"), the same
patch that made %p[fF] and %p[sS] functionally equivalent.

But my personal opinion would be not to backport the patch for two reasons:
the sheer number of files it touches (those format strings change for
various reasons) and the meager benefits it has on older kernels as any
backported patch using %s or %S still works as such. Porting a patch
forward should have no issues either as has been complaining
of the use of %pf and %pF for a while now.

Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists