Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:18:08 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kstrtox: make kstrtobool_from_user() very strict |
| |
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 06:02:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Once upon a time module parameter parsing code accepted >> > 0, 1, y, n, Y and N for boolean values. Gratituous but contained >> > to module code and thus tolerable. >> > >> > Commit ef951599074ba4fad2d0efa0a977129b41e6d203 >> > ("lib: move strtobool() to kstrtobool()") promoted that ugly wart >> > to kstrtobool() and, more importantly, kstrtobool_from_user(). >> > >> > Later set of accepted values was expanded to "on" and "of". >> > Now there are 6+8=14(!) valid strings for a boolean. >> > >> > This patch reduces set of accepted values to "0" and "1" >> > (with optional newline) in spirit with other kstrto*() functions. >> > >> > I'm starting with kstrtobool_from_user() as it is explicitly designed >> > to be used for interacting with userspace. Currently there are 9 users >> > all debug code, so there is hope. >> > >> > Please send before 4.16 so no real users start to depend on verbose behaviour.
>> NACK. >> You basically are breaking ABI here. I don't see a zillion patches >> which adds a tons of duplicate code to the corresponding users. > > Please do "find . -type f -name '*.[ch]' | xargs grep kstrtobool_from_user -w' > before talking about zillion of patches.
If you wonder, I did it of course. The stylistic device I used here is called "hyperbole".
Even for that dozen or so users I don't see how you handled the change.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |