Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> writes:
> Well, I'm not sure about this. Nearly all patches which get merged pass
> through a public review first, and when you see how many replies you get
> for and 'else' and and 'if' on two different lines, I expect lots of
> spontaneous replies such as "use %S for user-supplied strings".
I wouldn't rely on that.
>> A solution would be to normally use "%S" and only use
>> "%s" where "%S" wouldn't work. In that case, we could as well swap "%s"
>> and "%S", though - hardening the existing "%s" and introducing "%S" for
>> those callers that depend on the old behavior.
I think it's the way to go.
> I'd rather not change "%s" semantics if we introduce another specifier
> which does exactly what we would expect "%s" to do.
Both would be equivalent in most cases. It's better to use "%s" for
most cases (either secured or not) and leave "%S" for the bunch of
special cases whose authors better know what are they doing.
> I will try your proposal to retain the trailing '\n' unescaped.
I think with "%s" and "%S" this is no longer needed.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
