Renaud Allard <ren...@allard.it> wrote: > On 9/8/21 6:59 PM, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 08 2021, Renaud Allard <ren...@allard.it> wrote: > > [...] > > If you're worried that the %n uses in acl.c might trigger abort(3) > > calls > > in libc, please check and confirm that this debug_printf_something call > > actually ends up using stdio support for %n. > > Note that the clang check for %n might trigger with any function > > that is > > marked as "printf-like". That doesn't mean that our stdio layer will > > parse the %n format. > > > > If the abort() call is already in snapshots (tried on 14 sept snap), > then it doesn't seem to affect exim. There is test farm doing > extensive tests and it seems they are running like before.
For the greater community in the coming years, it is still better to write best-possible diffs which remove it in our tree, then hope that upstreams eventually understand, and even later after that, pray for the greater ecosystem to decide that %n can be removed. This will take two decades. But if we don't start with a "technology demonstration that %n is deletable", then we'll never get there.
