lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] params: Fix an overflow in param_attr_show
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:02:23 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:31:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > At minimum I'd suggest aligning the definitions vertically, to make sure
> > any missing \n stands out more, visually:
> >
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(byte, unsigned char, "%hhu\n", kstrtou8);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(short, short, "%hi\n", kstrtos16);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ushort, unsigned short, "%hu\n", kstrtou16);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(int, int, "%i\n", kstrtoint);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(uint, unsigned int, "%u\n", kstrtouint);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(long, long, "%li\n", kstrtol);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ulong, unsigned long, "%lu\n", kstrtoul);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ullong, unsigned long long, "%llu\n", kstrtoull);
>
> Sure it is possible to add a new parameter type. But why would the
> person adding it forget the \n? I can't imagine that someone adding a
> new type would type the new line of code character by character. Such an
> operation is calling for copy, paste and edit, at which point there is
> no reason why the \n would be actively deleted. Or this is sabotage,
> really ;-)
>
> Aligning parameters vertically as you suggest above is probably a good
> idea for overall readability anyway, so I can change my patch to do
> that, as I am modifying these lines anyway. It is pretty much
> independent from the fix per se, but if it makes you happy...

Or... I could append the \n inside the STANDARD_PARAM_DEF macro, so the
calls are unchanged. Makes my patch smaller, and addresses your concern
just as well, I suppose.

--
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-28 10:12    [W:0.054 / U:11.424 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site