On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:11:12 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:41 AM Quentin Monnet wrote:
> > 2019-08-15 22:08 UTC-0700 ~ Alexei Starovoitov
> > <[email protected]>
> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 7:32 AM Quentin Monnet
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >> Because the "__printf()" attributes were used only where the functions
> > >> are
> > >> implemented, and not in header files, the checks have not been enforced
> > >> on
> > >> all the calls to printf()-like functions, and a number of errors slipped
> > >> in
> > >> bpftool over time.
> > >>
> > >> This set cleans up such errors, and then moves the "__printf()"
> > >> attributes
> > >> to header files, so that the checks are performed at all locations.
> > >
> > > Applied. Thanks
> > >
> >
> > Thanks Alexei!
> >
> > I noticed the set was applied to the bpf-next tree, and not bpf. Just
> > checking if this is intentional?
>
> Yes. I don't see the _fix_ part in there.
Mm.. these are not critical indeed, but patches 1 and 3 do fix a crash.
Perhaps those should had been a series on their own.
We'll recalibrate :)
> Looks like cleanup to me.
> I've also considered to push
> commit d34b044038bf ("tools: bpftool: close prog FD before exit on
> showing a single program")
> to bpf-next as well.
> That fd leak didn't feel that necessary to push to bpf tree
> and risk merge conflicts... but I pushed it to bpf at the end.
