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, 24 Mar 2019 23:10:08 +0200
From:   Sakari Ailus <>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <>,
        Petr Mladek <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        scsi <>,
        Linux PM list <>,
        Linux MMC List <>,
        "" <>,,,,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <>,
        netdev <>,
        linux-btrfs <>,
        linux-pci <>,
        sparclinux <>,,
        ceph-devel <>,
        Linux MM <>,
        Linux ARM <>,
        Lars Ellenberg <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove support for deprecated %pf and %pF in vsprintf

Hi Andy,

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:05:50PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 03:53:50PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Porting a patch
> > forward should have no issues either as has been complaining
> > of the use of %pf and %pF for a while now.
> And that's exactly the reason why I think instead of removing warning on
> checkpatch, it makes sense to convert to an error for a while. People are
> tending read documentation on internet and thus might have outdated one. And
> yes, the compiler doesn't tell a thing about it.
> P.S. Though, if majority of people will tell that I'm wrong, then it's okay to
> remove.

I wonder if you wrote this before seeing my other patchset.

For others as the background, it adds %pfw to print fwnode node names.
Assuming this would be merged, %pfw could be in use relatively soon. With
the current patchset, %pf prints nothing just as %pO ("F" missing).

What I think could be done is to warn of plain %pf (without following "w")
in, and %pf that is not followed by "w" in the kernel.
Although we didn't have such checks to begin with. The case is still a
little bit different as %pf used to be a valid conversion specifier whereas
%pO likely has never existed.

So, how about adding such checks in the other set? I can retain %p[fF] check
here, too, if you like.

Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists