linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] printf: Emit "SUCCESS" if NULL is passed for %pe

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:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:05:31 +0200
From:   Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printf: Emit "SUCCESS" if NULL is passed for %pe

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:41:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 01:10:50PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > For code that emits a string representing a usual return value it's
> > convenient to have a 0 result in a string representation of success
> > instead of "00000000".
> 
> This is a controversial change. For APIs that comes to my mind it means
> "OPTIONAL resource NOT FOUND, while no error happened". Doe it mean success?
> I don't think so.

OK, agreed. Would you feed such a value unchecked to %pe today (i.e.
without my patch)?

Best regards
Uwe

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

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)