linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/19] vsprintf: add new `%pA` format specifier

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: <CAKwvOdkLF_DPP1FF60720q3zxZG2qaSNTthxJPxLb4Bj=AFE=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Dec 2021 11:52:09 -0800
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        rust-for-linux <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/19] vsprintf: add new `%pA` format specifier

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 8:14 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 04:56:32PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 4:46 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > That should be in a .h file somewhere.  Remember, don't put #ifdef in .c
> > > files please.

Why not put #ifdef in .c files?

> > Will do, thanks for reviewing!
> >
> > > Same here, this should not be needed if you put it in a .h file
> > > correctly.

I guess IS_ENABLED could be used in the .c code, but I don't see how
they could move the dispatch to rust_fmt_argument to a header without
moving the definition of pointer() to a header, which they probably
_cant_ do because it's noinline_for_stack.

> >
> > This one is mimicking the `CONFIG_BLOCK` one (`case 'g'` a bit above)
> > -- but we can change it, of course.
>
> That should be changed as well :)

Isn't the point to minimize code that's unused for certain configurations?

-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers