| Message ID | 20250321144822.324050-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | vsprintf: Add __printf attribute to where it's required | expand |
On Fri 2025-03-21 16:40:46, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > This whole series started from a simple fix (see the last patch) > to make GCC (Debian 14.2.0-17) happy when compiling with `make W=1` > (note, that CONFIG_WERROR=y and all warnings break the build!) > down to a rabbit hole. > > However starting from v2 the last patch doesn't require the first > part, I prefer still to have them since the functions, while being > _binary_ printf()-like, are still printf()-like. It also puts in align > the tracing stuff with the rest and fixes the wrong parameter value. > > These first 4 patches are organised in a strict order and can't be > reshuffled, otherwise it will produce a warnings in between. > > I believe the best route for the series is printk tree with immutable > tag or branch for the others. > > Alternatively the first 4 patches can be applied first as they > are pretty much straightforward. They also can be squashed to one > (as the same topic behind), but it all is up to the respective > maintainers. The whole series looks good to me: Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> I am going to push it via the printk tree. I think about doing so as a second pull request by the end of this merge window. Anyway, I am going to wait few more days for eventual feedback or push back. Best Regards, Petr
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 04:40:46PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > This whole series started from a simple fix (see the last patch) > to make GCC (Debian 14.2.0-17) happy when compiling with `make W=1` > (note, that CONFIG_WERROR=y and all warnings break the build!) > down to a rabbit hole. > > However starting from v2 the last patch doesn't require the first > part, I prefer still to have them since the functions, while being > _binary_ printf()-like, are still printf()-like. It also puts in align > the tracing stuff with the rest and fixes the wrong parameter value. > > These first 4 patches are organised in a strict order and can't be > reshuffled, otherwise it will produce a warnings in between. > > I believe the best route for the series is printk tree with immutable > tag or branch for the others. > > Alternatively the first 4 patches can be applied first as they > are pretty much straightforward. They also can be squashed to one > (as the same topic behind), but it all is up to the respective > maintainers. > > In v2: > - split out patch 5 (Rasmus) > - rewritten the approach for the va_format() fix (Rasmus) > - amended tracing patch (removed a blank line and a __printf() in C file) > > Andy Shevchenko (6): > seq_buf: Mark binary printing functions with __printf() attribute > seq_file: Mark binary printing functions with __printf() attribute > tracing: Mark binary printing functions with __printf() attribute > vsnprintf: Mark binary printing functions with __printf() attribute > vsnprintf: Drop unused const char fmt * in va_format() > vsnprintf: Silence false positive GCC warning for va_format() > > include/linux/seq_buf.h | 4 ++-- > include/linux/seq_file.h | 1 + > include/linux/string.h | 4 ++-- > include/linux/trace.h | 4 ++-- > include/linux/trace_seq.h | 8 ++++---- > kernel/trace/trace.c | 11 +++-------- > kernel/trace/trace.h | 16 +++++++++------- > lib/vsprintf.c | 9 +++++++-- > 8 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) Cool; it'll be nice to get these marked up. Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
On Tue 2025-03-25 11:15:21, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Fri 2025-03-21 16:40:46, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > This whole series started from a simple fix (see the last patch) > > to make GCC (Debian 14.2.0-17) happy when compiling with `make W=1` > > (note, that CONFIG_WERROR=y and all warnings break the build!) > > down to a rabbit hole. > > > > However starting from v2 the last patch doesn't require the first > > part, I prefer still to have them since the functions, while being > > _binary_ printf()-like, are still printf()-like. It also puts in align > > the tracing stuff with the rest and fixes the wrong parameter value. > > > > These first 4 patches are organised in a strict order and can't be > > reshuffled, otherwise it will produce a warnings in between. > > > > I believe the best route for the series is printk tree with immutable > > tag or branch for the others. > > > > Alternatively the first 4 patches can be applied first as they > > are pretty much straightforward. They also can be squashed to one > > (as the same topic behind), but it all is up to the respective > > maintainers. > > The whole series looks good to me: > > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> > > I am going to push it via the printk tree. I think about doing > so as a second pull request by the end of this merge window. > > Anyway, I am going to wait few more days for eventual feedback > or push back. JFYI, I have pushed the patchset into printk/linux.git, branch for-6.15-printf-attribute. I am going to send a pull request the following week if nothing happens in the meantime. Best Regards, Petr
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 3:51 PM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote: > On Tue 2025-03-25 11:15:21, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Fri 2025-03-21 16:40:46, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > This whole series started from a simple fix (see the last patch) > > > to make GCC (Debian 14.2.0-17) happy when compiling with `make W=1` > > > (note, that CONFIG_WERROR=y and all warnings break the build!) > > > down to a rabbit hole. > > > > > > However starting from v2 the last patch doesn't require the first > > > part, I prefer still to have them since the functions, while being > > > _binary_ printf()-like, are still printf()-like. It also puts in align > > > the tracing stuff with the rest and fixes the wrong parameter value. > > > > > > These first 4 patches are organised in a strict order and can't be > > > reshuffled, otherwise it will produce a warnings in between. > > > > > > I believe the best route for the series is printk tree with immutable > > > tag or branch for the others. > > > > > > Alternatively the first 4 patches can be applied first as they > > > are pretty much straightforward. They also can be squashed to one > > > (as the same topic behind), but it all is up to the respective > > > maintainers. > > > > The whole series looks good to me: > > > > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> > > > > I am going to push it via the printk tree. I think about doing > > so as a second pull request by the end of this merge window. > > > > Anyway, I am going to wait few more days for eventual feedback > > or push back. > > JFYI, I have pushed the patchset into printk/linux.git, > branch for-6.15-printf-attribute. > > I am going to send a pull request the following week > if nothing happens in the meantime. Thank you! It will make us much closer to the moment when we can enable WERROR=y in the CIs for `make W=1` on x86 defconfigs (those that are in the kernel source tree).