From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36099 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OHEYK-0002VU-SX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:13:38 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1OHEYJ-0000ZI-NA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:13:36 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:61142)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1OHEYJ-0000Z2-E5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:13:35 -0400
Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4QBDXeE026516
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:13:34 -0400
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qdev-properties: Fix (u)intXX parsers
References: <1274869693-22884-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 13:13:31 +0200
In-Reply-To: <1274869693-22884-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> (Kevin
	Wolf's message of "Wed, 26 May 2010 12:28:13 +0200")
Message-ID: <m3pr0isyp0.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kraxel@redhat.com

Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> writes:

> scanf calls must not use PRI constants, they have probably the wrong size and
> corrupt memory. We could replace them by SCN ones, but strtol is simpler than
> scanf here anyway. While at it, also fix the parsers to reject garbage after
> the number ("4096xyz" was accepted before).

Do we have more misuse of PRI with scanf elsewhere?  No need to fix them
all in one commit (and thus delay this fix); I just want to make sure
somebody looks.