RE: bug in sscanf()?

Allan, Bruce W
2014-01-14T00:32:20Z

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 1398 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linus971@gmail.com [mailto:linus971@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Linus
> Torvalds
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:23 PM
> To: Al Viro
> Cc: Allan, Bruce W; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Jan Beulich; Alexey
> Dobriyan
> Subject: Re: bug in sscanf()?
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Do we have actual users of this? Because I'd almost be inclined to say
> "we just don't support field widths on sscanf() and will warn" unless
> there are users.
>
> We've done that before. The kernel has various limited functions. See
> the whole snprint() issue with %n, which we decided that supporting
> the full semantics was actually a big mistake and we actively
> *removed* code that had been misguidedly added just because people
> thought we should do everything a standard user library does..
>
> Limiting our problem space is a *good* thing, not a bad thing.
>
> If it's possible, of course, and we don't have nasty users.
>
> Linus

I was hoping to use sscanf() in this way for a driver I'm working on to support
Thunderbolt device authentication, but if it's too much to ask for I could probably
work around this.

Bruce.

ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éÝ¶\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dÊ‡Ú™ë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥