linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] lib/vsprintf: Add support for printing V4L2 and DRM fourccs

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: <20200403093916.GA3172@kekkonen.localdomain>
Date:   Fri, 3 Apr 2020 12:39:16 +0300
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        hverkuil@...all.nl, laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com,
        mchehab@...nel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] lib/vsprintf: Add support for printing V4L2 and
 DRM fourccs

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the comments.

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 12:31:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 12:11:56PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Add a printk modifier %ppf (for pixel format) for printing V4L2 and DRM
> > pixel formats denoted by 4ccs. The 4cc encoding is the same for both so
> > the same implementation can be used.
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static noinline_for_stack
> > +char *fourcc_string(char *buf, char *end, const u32 *fourcc,
> > +		    struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt)
> > +{
> 
> > +#define FOURCC_STRING_BE	"-BE"
> > +	char s[sizeof(*fourcc) + sizeof(FOURCC_STRING_BE)] = { 0 };
> 
> I guess it makes it too complicated.

The above also clearly binds the size to the data that is expected to
contain there. I'd prefer keeping it as-is. And yes, 8 would be correct,
too.

> 
> 	char s[8];
> 
> > +	if (check_pointer(&buf, end, fourcc, spec))
> > +		return buf;
> > +
> > +	if (fmt[1] != 'c' || fmt[2] != 'c')
> > +		return error_string(buf, end, "(%p4?)", spec);
> > +
> 
> > +	put_unaligned_le32(*fourcc & ~BIT(31), s);
> 
> Can you elaborate what the difference in output with this bit set over cleared?
> I.o.w. why don't we need to put it as BE and for LE case addd "-LE"?

The established practice is that big endian formats have "-BE" suffix
whereas the little endian ones have nothing. (At least when it comes to
V4L2.)

> 
> > +	if (*fourcc & BIT(31))
> > +		strscpy(s + sizeof(*fourcc), FOURCC_STRING_BE,
> > +			sizeof(FOURCC_STRING_BE));
> 
> We know the size, and we may put '\0' as well
> 	if (*fourcc & BIT(31))
> 		strscpy(&s[4], "-BE", sizeof("-BE"));
> 	else
> 		strscpy(&s[4], "", sizeof(""));

The rest of the struct memory has already been set to zero in variable
declaration.

-- 
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus