RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

l.com > Subject: [kernel-hardening] RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead > of %pK usage > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com] > > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 2:21 PM > > To: Roberts, William C <

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

-kernel@vger.kernel.org; a...@canonical.com; kernel- > > harden...@lists.openwall.com > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK > > usage > > > > (Adding back the cc's) > > > > On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 21:28 +, Roberts, William C wrote

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 23:49 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > This means _all_ the $stat checks aren't being done on patches that add > > just a > > single multi-line statement. > > > > Andrew? Any thoughts on how to enable $stat appropriately for patch > > contexts > > with a single

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 23:49 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > This means _all_ the $stat checks aren't being done on patches that add > > just a > > single multi-line statement. > > > > Andrew? Any thoughts on how to enable $stat appropriately for patch > > contexts > > with a single

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

om > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage > > (Adding back the cc's) > > On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 21:28 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > > No worries. > > > No idea why it doesn't work for you. > > > Maybe the ha

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

> -Original Message- > From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com] > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 2:21 PM > To: Roberts, William C > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; a...@canonical.com; kernel- > harden...@lists.openwall.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatc

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

(Adding back the cc's) On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 21:28 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > No worries. > > No idea why it doesn't work for you. > > Maybe the hand applying was somehow > > faulty? > > > > The attached is on top of -next so it does have offsets on Linus' tree, but > > it seems >

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

(Adding back the cc's) On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 21:28 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > No worries. > > No idea why it doesn't work for you. > > Maybe the hand applying was somehow > > faulty? > > > > The attached is on top of -next so it does have offsets on Linus' tree, but > > it seems >

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

@intel.com>; linux- > > ker...@vger.kernel.org; a...@canonical.com > > Cc: kernel-harden...@lists.openwall.com > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage > > > > On Sat, 2017-02-11 at 01:32 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > &g

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

kernel.org; a...@canonical.com > > Cc: kernel-harden...@lists.openwall.com > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage > > > > On Sat, 2017-02-11 at 01:32 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > > > > > By "normal&q

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

om > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage > > On Sat, 2017-02-11 at 01:32 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > > > By "normal" I'm referring to things that call into pointer(), just > > > > casually looking I see bs

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

> -Original Message- > From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com] > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 7:24 PM > To: Roberts, William C ; linux- > ker...@vger.kernel.org; a...@canonical.com > Cc: kernel-harden...@lists.openwall.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatc

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

On Sat, 2017-02-11 at 01:32 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > By "normal" I'm referring to things that call into pointer(), just > > > casually looking I see bstr_printf vsnprintf kvasprintf, which would > > > be easy enough to add > > > > > > > What do you think is missing? sn?printf ?

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

On Sat, 2017-02-11 at 01:32 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > By "normal" I'm referring to things that call into pointer(), just > > > casually looking I see bstr_printf vsnprintf kvasprintf, which would > > > be easy enough to add > > > > > > > What do you think is missing? sn?printf ?

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

> > By "normal" I'm referring to things that call into pointer(), just > > casually looking I see bstr_printf vsnprintf kvasprintf, which would > > be easy enough to add > > > > > What do you think is missing? sn?printf ? That's easy to add. > > > > The problem starts to get hairy when we think

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

> > By "normal" I'm referring to things that call into pointer(), just > > casually looking I see bstr_printf vsnprintf kvasprintf, which would > > be easy enough to add > > > > > What do you think is missing? sn?printf ? That's easy to add. > > > > The problem starts to get hairy when we think

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 23:54 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > The problem starts to get hairy when we think of how often folks roll their > > own > > logging macros (see some small sampling at the end). It's not just the "hairy" local macros. In its current form, checkpatch could not find

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 23:54 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > The problem starts to get hairy when we think of how often folks roll their > > own > > logging macros (see some small sampling at the end). It's not just the "hairy" local macros. In its current form, checkpatch could not find

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

l-harden...@lists.openwall.com > Subject: RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com] > > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:50 PM > > To: Roberts, William

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

canonical.com; Andew Morton > foundation.org> > > Cc: keesc...@chromium.org; kernel-harden...@lists.openwall.com > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK > > usage > > > > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 22:26 +, Roberts, William C wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

(adding Emese Revfy and Julia Lawall) On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 23:31 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > The problem starts to get hairy when we think of how often folks roll their > own logging macros (see some small sampling at the end). > > I think we would want to add DEBUG DBG and sn?printf

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

(adding Emese Revfy and Julia Lawall) On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 23:31 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > The problem starts to get hairy when we think of how often folks roll their > own logging macros (see some small sampling at the end). > > I think we would want to add DEBUG DBG and sn?printf

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

foundation.org> > Cc: keesc...@chromium.org; kernel-harden...@lists.openwall.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage > > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 22:26 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-02

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

..@lists.openwall.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage > > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 22:26 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 11:37 -0800, william.c.robe...@intel.com wrote:

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 14:49 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 22:26 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 11:37 -0800, william.c.robe...@intel.com wrote: > > > > > From: William Roberts > > > > > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 14:49 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 22:26 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 11:37 -0800, william.c.robe...@intel.com wrote: > > > > > From: William Roberts > > > > > > > > > > Sample output: > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 22:26 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 11:37 -0800, william.c.robe...@intel.com wrote: > > > > From: William Roberts > > > > > > > > Sample output: > > > > WARNING: %pk is close to %pK, did you mean %pK?.

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 22:26 +, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 11:37 -0800, william.c.robe...@intel.com wrote: > > > > From: William Roberts > > > > > > > > Sample output: > > > > WARNING: %pk is close to %pK, did you mean %pK?. > > > > \#20: FILE:

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

> > > > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 11:37 -0800, william.c.robe...@intel.com wrote: > > > From: William Roberts > > > > > > Sample output: > > > WARNING: %pk is close to %pK, did you mean %pK?. > > > \#20: FILE: drivers/char/applicom.c:230: > > > +

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

> > > > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 11:37 -0800, william.c.robe...@intel.com wrote: > > > From: William Roberts > > > > > > Sample output: > > > WARNING: %pk is close to %pK, did you mean %pK?. > > > \#20: FILE: drivers/char/applicom.c:230: > > > + printk(KERN_INFO "Could not allocate

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

foundation.org> > Cc: keesc...@chromium.org; kernel-harden...@lists.openwall.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage > > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 11:37 -0800, william.c.robe...@intel.com wrote: > > From: William Roberts <william.c.robe...@intel.co

RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

..@lists.openwall.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage > > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 11:37 -0800, william.c.robe...@intel.com wrote: > > From: William Roberts > > > > Sample output: > > WARNING: %pk is close to %pK, did you

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 11:37 -0800, william.c.robe...@intel.com wrote: > From: William Roberts > > Sample output: > WARNING: %pk is close to %pK, did you mean %pK?. > \#20: FILE: drivers/char/applicom.c:230: > + printk(KERN_INFO "Could not allocate

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 11:37 -0800, william.c.robe...@intel.com wrote: > From: William Roberts > > Sample output: > WARNING: %pk is close to %pK, did you mean %pK?. > \#20: FILE: drivers/char/applicom.c:230: > + printk(KERN_INFO "Could not allocate IRQ %d for PCI > Applicom

[PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

From: William Roberts Sample output: WARNING: %pk is close to %pK, did you mean %pK?. \#20: FILE: drivers/char/applicom.c:230: + printk(KERN_INFO "Could not allocate IRQ %d for PCI Applicom device. %pk\n", dev->irq, pci_get_class);

[PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

From: William Roberts Sample output: WARNING: %pk is close to %pK, did you mean %pK?. \#20: FILE: drivers/char/applicom.c:230: + printk(KERN_INFO "Could not allocate IRQ %d for PCI Applicom device. %pk\n", dev->irq, pci_get_class); Signed-off-by: William Roberts ---