Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:48:21 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] params: Fix an overflow in param_attr_show |
| |
* Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> wrote:
> > 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?
Because they are human? I certainly forgot similar details when writing code, numerous times, and making constructs more robust against mistakes is half of my job as a maintainer. This is kernel design 101.
> 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 ;-)
WTF? Really, I've given you useful feedback in the last couple of days, and my suggestions were generally correct and on topic, still your replies were passive-aggressive, obtuse and generally foul tempered in every single case.
Just the latest example:
> 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...
I made a routine, technically valid suggestion that I made countless other kernel developers in the past who sent me code with such a pattern, and I do not appreciate your condescending tone, it's not about 'making me happy'.
You need to handle criticism of your patches properly and constructively.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |