netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove support for deprecated %pf and %pF in vsprintf

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 17:24:09 +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 Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 05:13:00PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:

> All other invalid pointer conversion specifiers currently result into a
> warning only. I see that as an orthogonal change to this set. I found
> another issue in checkpatch.pl that may require some discussion; would you
> be ok with addressing this in another set?

If it looks better that way, I have no objection.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko