[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZJHAKnO4+KT0km2H@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 18:05:14 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
'Demi Marie Obenour' <demi@...isiblethingslab.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <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>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Make sscanf() stricter
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 04:57:55PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2023-06-20 16:52:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 03:34:09PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Thu 2023-06-15 14:23:59, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 08:06:46AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
...
> > > + %pj or another %p modifiers would be hard to understand either.
> > >
> > > Yes, we have %pe but I think that only few people really use it.
> > > And it is kind of self-explanatory because it is typically
> > > used together with ERR_PTR() and with variables called
> > > "err" or "ret".
> >
> > j, besides the luck of no (yet) use in the kernel's printf(), is
> > described for printf(3)
> >
> > j A following integer conversion corresponds to an intmax_t or uintmax_t
> > argument, or a following n conversion corresponds to a pointer to an
> > intmax_t argument.
>
> I see, I have missed this coincidence. And we would really need to use %pj.
> %jd requires intmax_t variable. Otherwise, the compiler produces:
>
> kernel/lib/test.c:10:17: error: format ‘%jd’ expects argument of type ‘intmax_t *’, but argument 3 has type ‘int *’ [-Werror=format=]
> sscanf(str, "%jd hello.", &tmp);
>
> Hmm, %pj might even make some sense for sscanf() which requires pointers anyway.
> But still, we would lose the compiler check of the size of the passed
> buffer.
>
> This is actually my concern with many other %p modifiers. The compiler
> is not able to check that we pass the right pointer. I know that this
> might happen even with wrong buffer passed to %s or so. But number
> types is another category.
Yeah, it was a discussion IIRC for the compiler plugin to support %p
extensions, but I have no idea where it's now.
> > So, I think among all proposals, this one is the best (while all of them may
> > sound not good).
>
> I still prefer the custom handler when it is not too complex.
>
> Or if there are many users, we could create sscanf_strict() or so.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists