lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: printk()s of user-supplied strings
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-28 13:21    [W:0.129 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site