lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: bug in sscanf()?
Date
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linus971@gmail.com [mailto:linus971@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Linus
> Torvalds
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:23 PM
> To: Al Viro
> Cc: Allan, Bruce W; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Jan Beulich; Alexey
> Dobriyan
> Subject: Re: bug in sscanf()?
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Do we have actual users of this? Because I'd almost be inclined to say
> "we just don't support field widths on sscanf() and will warn" unless
> there are users.
>
> We've done that before. The kernel has various limited functions. See
> the whole snprint() issue with %n, which we decided that supporting
> the full semantics was actually a big mistake and we actively
> *removed* code that had been misguidedly added just because people
> thought we should do everything a standard user library does..
>
> Limiting our problem space is a *good* thing, not a bad thing.
>
> If it's possible, of course, and we don't have nasty users.
>
> Linus

I was hoping to use sscanf() in this way for a driver I'm working on to support
Thunderbolt device authentication, but if it's too much to ask for I could probably
work around this.

Bruce.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-14 08:41    [W:0.056 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site