linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/24] inet_net_pton.3: Use 'PRIx32' rather than "%x" when printing 'uint32

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: <050c5399-8f08-5ae6-2546-0cafd055780a@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:39:24 +0200
From:   Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@...il.com>
To:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-man@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/24] inet_net_pton.3: Use 'PRIx32' rather than "%x" when
 printing 'uint32_t' values

Hi Michael,

On 2020-09-11 11:31, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On 9/10/20 11:13 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@...il.com>
>> ---
>>   man3/inet_net_pton.3 | 3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/man3/inet_net_pton.3 b/man3/inet_net_pton.3
>> index 00f94b9d4..d74a33d74 100644
>> --- a/man3/inet_net_pton.3
>> +++ b/man3/inet_net_pton.3
>> @@ -332,6 +332,7 @@ Raw address:              c1a80180
>>   /* Link with "\-lresolv" */
>>   
>>   #include <arpa/inet.h>
>> +#include <inttypes.h>
>>   #include <stdio.h>
>>   #include <stdlib.h>
>>   
>> @@ -381,7 +382,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>          may not have been touched by inet_net_ntop(), and so will still
>>          have any initial value that was specified in argv[2]. */
>>   
>> -    printf("Raw address:              %x\en", htonl(addr.s_addr));
>> +    printf("Raw address:              %"PRIx32"\en", htonl(addr.s_addr));
>>   
>>       exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
>>   }
> 
> So, I'm in a little bit of doubt about patches 01 and 02. Does
> this really win us anything? On the one hand, %"PRIx32" is more
> difficult to read than %x. On the other, does it win us anything
> in terms of portability? At first glance, the answers seems to me
> to be "no". Your thoughts?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael

On 16-bit systems 'unsigned int' might be shorter than 'uint32_t'.
There it would make a difference, I guess.


Thanks,

Alex