On 2020/05/25 4:18, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote: > I'm also not sure if this is really worth it... It would help localize > the bug in this specific case, but there is nothing systematic about > it. Are there that many debug print statements that dereference > pointers that are later passed to functions, but not dereferenced > otherwise? Maybe yes, but it seems to be quite an optimistic > assumption... I don't consider it such a big problem that a bug in > function X only manifests itself deeper in the callchain. There will > always be such bugs, no matter how many moles you whack.
There are about 1400 pr_debug() callers. About 1000 pr_debug() callers seem to pass plain '%p' (which is now likely useless for debugging purpose due to default ptr_to_id() conversion inside pointer()), and about 400 pr_debug() callers seem to pass '%p[a-zA-Z]' (which does some kind of dereference inside pointer()). Thus, we might find some bugs by evaluating '%p[a-zA-Z]'. On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 7:38 PM Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > While I think this is rather unnecessary, > what about dev_dbg/netdev_dbg/netif_dbg et al ? Maybe a good idea, for there are about 24000 *dev_dbg() callers, and 479 callers pass '%p[a-zA-Z]'. But we can defer to another patch, in case this patch finds crashes before fuzz testing process starts.
