netdev - Re: atm/clip: Use seq_puts() in svc

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:   Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:30:12 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: atm/clip: Use seq_puts() in svc_addr()

>> Is the function "seq_puts" a bit more efficient for the desired output
>> of a single string in comparison to calling the function "seq_printf"
>> for this purpose?
> 
> Will you please be so kind and tell us?

How do you think about to get the run time characteristics for these
sequence output functions better documented?
https://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.15-rc6/source/fs/seq_file.c#L660

Can an information like “WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf”
(from the script “checkpatch.pl”) be another incentive?


>>> and "strings should be quickly put into a sequence"
>>> isn't terribly helpful.  
>>
>> Which wording would you find more appropriate for the suggested
>> adjustment of these function calls?
> 
> Whatever describes the actual issue and what you're doing about it.
> Turn your rhetorical question above into a commit message, done.
> 
> Compare that with your original commit message, on the other hand,
> and you should understand what I mean.

Which descriptions are you really missing for the affected data output?

Regards,
Markus