Re: [PATCH 06/14] lib/vsprintf.c: warn about too large precisions and field widths

[Rasmus Villemoes]

On Mon, Nov 23 2015, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Rasmus Villemoes
> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The field width is overloaded to pass some extra information for
>> some %p extensions (e.g. #bits for %pb). But we might silently
>> truncate the passed value when we stash it in struct printf_spec (see
>> e.g. "lib/vsprintf.c: expand field_width to 24 bits").  Hopefully 23
>> value bits should now be enough for everybody, but if not, let's make
>> some noise.
>>
>> Do the same for the precision. In both cases, clamping seems more
>> sensible than truncating. While, according to POSIX, "A negative
>> precision is taken as if the precision were omitted.", the kernel's
>> printf has always treated that case as if the precision was 0, so we
>> use that as lower bound. For the field width, the smallest
>> representable value is actually -(1<<23), but a negative field width
>> means 'set the LEFT flag and use the absolute value', so we want the
>> absolute value to fit.
>>
>
> Do we need to do the same for bstr_printf() ?
>

Heh, apparently I didn't learn anything from 762abb51. Thanks, will fix
in next spin.

Rasmus
--
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/