linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] lib/vsprintf: update comment about simple

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: <20200221163334.w7pocmbbw4ymimlc@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:33:34 +0100
From:   Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] lib/vsprintf: update comment about
 simple_strto<foo>() functions

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 05:27:49PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:54 PM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:57:23AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > The commit 885e68e8b7b1 ("kernel.h: update comment about simple_strto<foo>()
> > > functions") updated a comment regard to simple_strto<foo>() functions, but
> > > missed similar change in the vsprintf.c module.
> > >
> > > Update comments in vsprintf.c as well for simple_strto<foo>() functions.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > - * This function is obsolete. Please use kstrtoull instead.
> > > + * This function has caveats. Please use kstrtoull instead.
> 
> > I wonder if we instead want to create a set of functions that is
> > versatile enough to cover kstrtoull and simple_strtoull. i.e. fix the
> > rounding problems (that are the caveats, right?) and as calling
> > convention use an errorvalued int return + an output-parameter of the
> > corresponding type.
> 
> It wouldn't be possible to apply same rules to both. They both are
> part of existing ABI.

The idea is to creat a sane set of functions, then convert all users to
the sane one and only then strip the strange functions away. (Userspace)
ABI isn't affected, is it?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |