From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54199 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OHEeX-0004H1-5v
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:20:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OHEeU-0001jN-BT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:19:59 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50203)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OHEeU-0001jH-4P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:19:58 -0400
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4QBJtTA001227
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:19:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4BFD03C9.2010608@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 13:19:37 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qdev-properties: Fix (u)intXX parsers
References: <1274869693-22884-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
	<m3pr0isyp0.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <m3pr0isyp0.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kraxel@redhat.com

Am 26.05.2010 13:13, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
> 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.

I saw another one in some Xen file that Gerd should fix some time. I'm
not aware of any other.

Kevin