On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 22:44 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 18:33 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 21:13 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:Patch ef0658f3de484bf9b173639cd47544584e01efa5 changed the precision field
from and int to an s8. Problem is that we have code which uses a much larger
precision in the kernel. An example would in the audit code where we have:
vsnprintf(...,..., " msg='%.1024s'", (char *)data);
which causes precision to be too large and end up truncating to nothing.
Raising the size of the precision fixes the audit system issue. It also does
not affect the alignment of the struct according to pahole and is still
approprietely packed.
I don't see how it could be appropriately packed.
I was just saying there was no padding inside the struct, although you
are right about it now being longer than 64.
Which is bad.
But what does __attribute__((packed)) buy us?
It could force the size to be 64 bits on more platforms.
I'll gladly resend with u8 type and s16 precision if that's the best
solution.
Reordering struct members to keep width and precision
together seems appropriate. The attribute may not be.
struct printf_spec {
u8 type;
u8 flags; /* flags to number() */
u8 base;
u8 qualifier;
s16 field_width; /* width of output field */
s16 precision; /* # of digits/chars */
};
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/