Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: printk()s of user-supplied strings | From | Krzysztof Halasa <> | Date | Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:17:43 +0200 |
| |
Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> writes:
> Well, I'm not sure about this. Nearly all patches which get merged pass > through a public review first, and when you see how many replies you get > for and 'else' and and 'if' on two different lines, I expect lots of > spontaneous replies such as "use %S for user-supplied strings".
I wouldn't rely on that.
>> A solution would be to normally use "%S" and only use >> "%s" where "%S" wouldn't work. In that case, we could as well swap "%s" >> and "%S", though - hardening the existing "%s" and introducing "%S" for >> those callers that depend on the old behavior.
I think it's the way to go.
> I'd rather not change "%s" semantics if we introduce another specifier > which does exactly what we would expect "%s" to do.
Both would be equivalent in most cases. It's better to use "%s" for most cases (either secured or not) and leave "%S" for the bunch of special cases whose authors better know what are they doing.
> I will try your proposal to retain the trailing '\n' unescaped.
I think with "%s" and "%S" this is no longer needed. -- Krzysztof Halasa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |