On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 10:25 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2018-03-05 16:16:37, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > On 2 March 2018 at 13:53, Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> wrote:
> > > - if (!ptr && *fmt != 'K' && *fmt != 'x') {
> > > + if ((unsigned long)ptr < PAGE_SIZE && *fmt != 'K' && *fmt
> > > != 'x') {
> >
> > ISTM that accidentally passing an ERR_PTR would be just as likely as
> > passing a NULL pointer (or some small offset from one), so if we do
> > this, shouldn't the test also cover IS_ERR values?
>
> It would make perfect sense to catch IS_ERR_PTR(). Derefenrecing
> such pointer cause crash. But it might be pretty confusing to print
> "(null)" in this case.
>
> I would handle this in separate patch and print "(err)" or so.
> Any volunteer to prepare the patch?
As I pointed out, we have already such check for %s in binary printf().
And it goes for "(null)". I'm not sure if changing that might break
something.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
