[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZIeHfBf3aB3vUgRM@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 00:00:44 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Demi Marie Obenour <demi@...isiblethingslab.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Make sscanf() stricter
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 04:25:01PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 02:59:38PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > + bool _placeholder;
> > > + return simple_strntoull(cp, INT_MAX, endp, base, &_placeholder);
> >
> > This can be done without introducing dummy variables:
> >
> > void f(bool *b)
> > {
> > }
> >
> > f((bool[1]){});
>
> This is more consise, but (at least to me) significantly less readable.
>
> > > > lib/vsprintf.c:3727:26: error: unknown conversion type character ‘!’ in format [-Werror=format=]
> > > So NAK.
> >
> > Yeah, ! should go after format specifier like it does for %p.
>
> I hadn't considered that. Is the typical approach in Linux to use e.g.
> %d%[!] if one wants a literal '!'?
It might be that the cleanest way we have is to create %p-like extensions to
sscanf(). %p takes alnum as parameter and that is usually works since it makes
a little sense to attach alnum suffix to the pointer.
(I don't like to have %dX, where X is alnum as we expanding our hack to
something which people don't expect to be altered even in the kernelm, you may
refer to the discussion about %de for printing errors)
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists