On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:12 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > Move code from the long pointer() function. We are going to add a > check for > the access to the address that will make it even more complicated. > > Also it is better to warn about unknown specifier instead of falling > back to the %p behavior. It will help people to understand what is > going wrong. They expect some device node names and not a pointer > in this situation. > > In fact, this avoids leaking the address when invalid %pO format > specifier is used. The old code fallen back to printing the > non-hashed value. >
> +static char *kobject_string(char *buf, char *end, void *ptr, > + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt) Do we need noinline_for_stack annotation? (Same question applies to patch 7) -- Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> Intel Finland Oy
