On Thu 2018-04-26 10:28:05, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (04/25/18 13:12), Petr Mladek wrote:
> [..]
> > /*
> >* This is not a fool-proof test. 99% of the time that this will fault is
> >* due to a bad pointer, not one that crosses into bad memory. Just test
> > @@ -623,8 +626,12 @@ sta
On (04/25/18 13:12), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> /*
>* This is not a fool-proof test. 99% of the time that this will fault is
>* due to a bad pointer, not one that crosses into bad memory. Just test
> @@ -623,8 +626,12 @@ static const char *check_pointer_access(const void *ptr)
> if (
On 2018-04-25 13:12, Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_printf.c b/lib/test_printf.c
> index 45c33143fb4a..74dff6c44ec6 100644
> --- a/lib/test_printf.c
> +++ b/lib/test_printf.c
> @@ -285,12 +285,19 @@ null_pointer(void)
>
> #define PTR_INVALID ((void *)0x00ab)
>
> +extern in
vsprintf puts "(efault)" into the output string when it is unable
to read information from the given address.
But "(efault)" might be hard to spot. And any invalid pointer is likely
to cause problems later. It is reasonable to WARN() about it.
The only problem might be a code that rely on the fac
4 matches
Mail list logo
