From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 15:35:03 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: Do not break early boot with probing addresses Message-ID: <20190514153503.6b7faaa7@oasis.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20190510081635.GA4533@jagdpanzerIV> <20190510084213.22149-1-pmladek@suse.com> <20190510122401.21a598f6@gandalf.local.home> <096d6c9c17b3484484d9d9d3f3aa3a7c@AcuMS.aculab.com> <20190513091320.GK9224@smile.fi.intel.com> <20190513124220.wty2qbnz4wo52h3x@pathway.suse.cz> <20190514020730.GA651@jagdpanzerIV> <45348cf615fe40d383c1a25688d4a88f@AcuMS.aculab.com> <20190514143751.48e81e05@oasis.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20190514193503.XdZN4DHnv7PT3ysPIU9r8z4k2mgdzV7WD0-q-GTF5Zk@z> List-Archive: List-Post: To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: David Laight , Sergey Senozhatsky , Petr Mladek , Andy Shevchenko , christophe leroy , Linus Torvalds , Rasmus Villemoes , "Tobin C . Harding" , Michal Hocko , Sergey Senozhatsky , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Michael Ellerman , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Russell Currey , Stephen Rothwell , Heiko Carstens , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , Martin Schwidefsky List-ID: On Tue, 14 May 2019 21:13:06 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > Do we care about the value? "(-E%u)"? > > > > That too could be confusing. What would (-E22) be considered by a user > > doing an sprintf() on some string. I know that would confuse me, or I > > would think that it was what the %pX displayed, and wonder why it > > displayed it that way. Whereas "(fault)" is quite obvious for any %p > > use case. > > I would immediately understand there's a missing IS_ERR() check in a > function that can return -EINVAL, without having to add a new printk() > to find out what kind of bogus value has been received, and without > having to reboot, and trying to reproduce... Hi Geert, I have to ask. Has there actually been a case that you used a %pX and it faulted, and you had to go back to find what the value of the failure was? IMO, sprintf() should not be a tool to do this, because then people will not add their IS_ERR() and just let sprintf() do the job for them. I don't think that would be wise to allow. -- Steve