From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 v2] json_print: Fix hidden 64-bit type promotion
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 16:57:52 +0200
Message-ID: <87bme75o5r.fsf@toke.dk>
References: <20180329192220.30101-1-ldir@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> <20180425143022.6986-1-toke@toke.dk> <20180425075527.680f34fc@xeon-e3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <ldir@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail.toke.dk ([52.28.52.200]:42629 "EHLO mail.toke.dk"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1754629AbeDYO5y (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:57:54 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20180425075527.680f34fc@xeon-e3>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> writes:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 16:30:22 +0200
> Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
>
>> print_uint() will silently promote its variable type to uint64_t, but th=
ere
>> is nothing that ensures that the format string specifier passed along wi=
th
>> it fits (and the function name suggest to pass "%u").
>>=20
>> Fix this by changing print_uint() to use a native 'unsigned int' type, a=
nd
>> introduce a separate print_u64() function for printing 64-bit values. All
>> call sites that were actually printing 64-bit values using print_uint() =
are
>> converted to use print_u64() instead.
>>=20
>> Since print_int() was already using native int types, just add a
>> print_s64() to match, but don't convert any call sites.
>>=20
>> Cc: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <ldir@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk>
>> Signed-off-by: Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen <toke@toke.dk>
>
> Yes, this makes sense. Maybe there should be a print_luint for
> consistency.

I just realised I missed a few call sites, so I'll resend. Should I
call the new function print_luint() instead of print_u64()?

> Also, I tried (in vain) to make a version that allows GCC to check the
> format string.  But it was a struggle and just gave up.

Yeah, no idea how to do this either...

-Toke