> -----Original Message----- > From: linus...@gmail.com [mailto:linus...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Linus > Torvalds > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:23 PM > To: Al Viro > Cc: Allan, Bruce W; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Jan Beulich; Alexey > Dobriyan > Subject: Re: bug in sscanf()? > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > Comments? > > Do we have actual users of this? Because I'd almost be inclined to say > "we just don't support field widths on sscanf() and will warn" unless > there are users. > > We've done that before. The kernel has various limited functions. See > the whole snprint() issue with %n, which we decided that supporting > the full semantics was actually a big mistake and we actively > *removed* code that had been misguidedly added just because people > thought we should do everything a standard user library does.. > > Limiting our problem space is a *good* thing, not a bad thing. > > If it's possible, of course, and we don't have nasty users. > > Linus
I was hoping to use sscanf() in this way for a driver I'm working on to support Thunderbolt device authentication, but if it's too much to ask for I could probably work around this. Bruce.
