linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 09/13] lib/vsprintf: Add a note on re-using %pf or %pF

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: <20190924104549.qiayzhr7zikja7sp@pathway.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 24 Sep 2019 12:45:49 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     rafael@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 09/13] lib/vsprintf: Add a note on re-using %pf or %pF

On Wed 2019-09-18 16:34:15, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Add a note warning of re-use of obsolete %pf or %pF extensions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> ---
>  lib/vsprintf.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
> index b00b57f9f911f..df59818537b52 100644
> --- a/lib/vsprintf.c
> +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c
> @@ -2008,6 +2008,8 @@ static char *kobject_string(char *buf, char *end, void *ptr,
>   * - 'S' For symbolic direct pointers (or function descriptors) with offset
>   * - 's' For symbolic direct pointers (or function descriptors) without offset
>   * - '[Ss]R' as above with __builtin_extract_return_addr() translation
> + * - '[Ff]' Obsolete an now unsupported extension for printing direct pointers
> + *	    or function descriptors. Be careful when re-using %pf or %pF!

I am not a native speaker but the sentence is hard to parse to me.
Also I miss the word 'symbolic'. IMHO, it described that the output
was a symbol name.

What about something like?

  * - '[Ff]' %pf and %pF were obsoleted and later removed in favor of
  *	    %ps and %pS. Be careful when re-using these specifiers.

Best Regards,
Petr