linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/1] Using the right format specifiers for bpftool

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7gpn4zamubd3j6d3wiywpfftbu7vxawrlwzjwse3lbv3ovejlu@2vfemcisx5pi>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 22:27:08 +0800
From: Jiayuan Chen <mrpre@....com>
To: Quentin Monnet <qmo@...nel.org>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, 
	daniel@...earbox.net, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, hawk@...nel.org, 
	john.fastabend@...il.com, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, eddyz87@...il.com, 
	song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me, 
	haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/1] Using the right format specifiers for
 bpftool

On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 01:22:19PM +0000, Quentin Monnet wrote:
> On 07/02/2025 12:37, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
> > Fixed some incorrect formatting specifiers that were exposed when I added
> > the "-Wformat" flag to the compiler options.
> > 
> > This patch doesn't include "-Wformat" in the Makefile for now, as I've
> > only addressed some obvious semantic issues with the compiler warnings.
> > There are still other warnings that need to be tackled.
> > 
> > For example, there's an ifindex that's sometimes defined as a signed type
> > and sometimes as an unsigned type, which makes formatting a real pain
> > - sometimes it needs %d and sometimes %u. This might require a more
> > fundamental fix from the variable definition side.
> > 
> > If the maintainer is okay with adding "-Wformat" to the
> > tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile, please let us know, and we can follow up with
> > further fixes.
> 
> No objection from the maintainer, thanks for looking into this. Did you
> catch these issues with just "-Wformat"? I'm asking because I need to
> use an additional flag, "-Wformat-signedness", to have my compiler
> display the %d/%u reports.
> 
> Thanks,
> Quentin
Yes, I previously added '-Wformat -Wformat-signedness', but I just tried
again and it turns out that only '-Wformat-signedness' takes effect.