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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 23:19:32 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> To: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, ceph-devel <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Lars Ellenberg <drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove support for deprecated %pf and %pF in vsprintf On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:10:08PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > 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 checkpatch.pl 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 tending read documentation on internet and thus might have outdated one.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. Yes, I wrote it before seeing another series. > What I think could be done is to warn of plain %pf (without following "w") > in checkpatch.pl, 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. Consistency tells me that the warning->error transformation in checkpatch.pl belongs this series. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists