linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] lib/vsprintf: Avoid redundant work with 0 size

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]

Date:   Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:01:51 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] lib/vsprintf: Avoid redundant work with 0 size

On 2/1/22 02:12, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 31/01/2022 19.48, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 1/31/22 05:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> Also it seems currently the kernel documentation is not aligned with
>>> the code
>>>
>>>     "If @size is == 0 the function returns 0."
>>>
>>> It should mention the (theoretical?) possibility of getting negative
>>> value,
>>> if vsnprintf() returns negative value.
>> AFAICS, the kernel's vsnprintf() function will not return -1.
> Even if it did, the "i < size" comparison in vscnprintf() is "int v
> size_t", so integer promotion says that even if i were negative, that
> comparison would be false, so we wouldn't forward that negative value
> anyway.
>
>> So in that
>> sense it is not fully POSIX compliant.
> Of course it's not, but not because it doesn't return -1. POSIX just
> says to return that in case of an error, and as a matter of QoI, the
> kernel's implementation simply can't (and must not) fail. There are
> other cases where we don't follow POSIX/C, e.g. in some corner cases
> around field length and precision (documented in test_printf.c), and the
> non-support of %n (and floating point and handling of wchar_t*), and the
> whole %p<> extension etc.
>
> Rasmus
>
Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers,
Longman