> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobin C. Harding [mailto:m...@tobin.cc]
> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 2:23 PM
> To: Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>; Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com>;
> Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com>; Steven Rostedt
> <rost...@goodmis.org>; LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Andrew Morton
> <a...@linux-foundation.org>; Joe Perches <j...@perches.com>; Roberts,
> William C <william.c.robe...@intel.com>; Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-
> foundation.org>; David Laight <david.lai...@aculab.com>; Randy Dunlap
> <rdun...@infradead.org>; Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: avoid misleading "(null)" for %px
>
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:58:17PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 07:32:32AM +1100, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Tobin C. Harding <m...@tobin.cc> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 05:57:17AM +1100, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com>
> wrote:
> > > >> > On Sun 2018-02-04 18:45:21, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > >> >> Like %pK already does, print "00000000" instead.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> This confused people -- the convention is that "(null)" means
> > > >> >> you tried to dereference a null pointer as opposed to printing the
> address.
> > > >
> > > > Leaving aside what is converting to %px. If we consider that
> > > > using %px is meant to convey to us that we _really_ want the
> > > > address, in hex hence the 'x', then it is not surprising that we
> > > > will get "00000000"'s for a null pointer, right? Yes it is
> > > > different to before but since we are changing the specifier does
> > > > this not imply that there may be some change?
> > >
> > > I personally prefer 0000s, but if we're going to change this, we
> > > need to be aware of the difference.
> >
> > It's easy to paint this bikeshed any color you guys want to: there's an "if"
> > already. My preference is also 0000; NULL would be good, too -- I
> > just don't want (null) as that has a special meaning in usual
> > userspace implementations; (null) also fits well most other modes of
> > %p as they show some object the argument points to. Confusion = wasted
> debugging time.
> >
> > This is consistent with what we had before, with %pK special-cased.
> >
> > > > In what is now to be expected fashion for %p the discussion
> > > > appears to have split into two different things - what to do with
> > > > %px and what to do with %pK :)
> > >
> > > I say leave %pK alone. :)
> >
> > As in, printing some random (hashed) value?
> >
> >
> > Let's recap:
> >
> > Currently:
> > not-null null
> > %pponies object's description (null)
> > %px address (null)
> > %pK hash hash
> >
> > I'd propose:
> > not-null null
> > %pponies object's description (null)
> > %px address 00000000
> > %pK hash 00000000
> >
> > The initial patch in this thread changes printk("%px",0) from (null)
> > to 00000000; what Tobin complained about is that printk("%pK",0) prints a
> > random value.
>
> Epic fail on my behalf, my first comment was _wrong_ and brought %pK into the
> discussion - bad Tobin, please crawl back under your rock.
>
> The original patch is good IMO and I AFAICT in everyone else's.
Nod.
>
> Tobin
