On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:13:38PM +0000, David Laight wrote: >> From: Paul E. McKenney >> > Sent: 04 December 2017 13:42 >> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:32:30PM +0000, David Laight wrote: >> > > From: Paul E. McKenney >> > > > Sent: 01 December 2017 20:09 >> > > > >> > > > Because %p prints "(null)" and %pK prints "0000000000000000" or (on >> > > > 32-bit systems) "00000000", this commit adjusts torture-test scripting >> > > > accordingly. >> > > >> > > Surely NULL v not-NULL is one bit of info that the message needs to >> > > contain? >> > >> > Indeed. So the script needs to check for the strings "00000000", >> > "0000000000000000", and "(null) in the console output". The "(null)" >> > is what "%p" prints for a NULL pointer, and the other two strings are >> > what "%pK" prints for a NULL pointer. >> > >> > Or am I missing your point? >> >> I was thinking that even %pK should print "(null)". > > That was my expectation, as in the need for this patch came as a > surprise to me. > >> Perhaps it should have printed a fixed, non-zero value for non-zero >> pointers. > > I must leave this to the people who have a dog in that contest. ;-)
Since there is an ongoing discussion with security people near to %pK and alike, I added Kees and Linus to Cc list. The proposed change can be done easily, though I have no knowledge about possible implications. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
