Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754784AbdIGHuI (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2017 03:50:08 -0400 Received: from server.coly.li ([162.144.45.48]:36936 "EHLO server.coly.li" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754414AbdIGHuD (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2017 03:50:03 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] md/bcache: Use %pS printk format for direct addresses To: Helge Deller Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Senozhatsky , Petr Mladek , Andrew Morton , linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org References: <1504729681-3504-1-git-send-email-deller@gmx.de> <1504729681-3504-7-git-send-email-deller@gmx.de> <29e5f2a8-c829-0aba-5b06-1501c98690a6@coly.li> <30e9400c-b95d-5720-f9a0-6086f08ecd4a@gmx.de> From: Coly Li Message-ID: <928ff0ac-41e3-7e5e-45f4-bee69c6a4503@coly.li> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 15:49:57 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <30e9400c-b95d-5720-f9a0-6086f08ecd4a@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.coly.li X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - coly.li X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.coly.li: authenticated_id: i@coly.li X-Authenticated-Sender: server.coly.li: i@coly.li X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2645 Lines: 65 On 2017/9/7 下午3:42, Helge Deller wrote: > On 07.09.2017 06:50, Coly Li wrote: >> On 2017/9/7 上午4:27, Helge Deller wrote: >>> Use the %pS instead of the %pF printk format specifier for printing symbols >>> from direct addresses. This is needed for the ia64, ppc64 and parisc64 >>> architectures. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Helge Deller >>> Cc: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org >>> Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org >>> --- >>> drivers/md/bcache/closure.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c >>> index 864e673..0b0c9bc 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c >>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c >>> @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ static int debug_seq_show(struct seq_file *f, void *data) >>> list_for_each_entry(cl, &closure_list, all) { >>> int r = atomic_read(&cl->remaining); >>> >>> - seq_printf(f, "%p: %pF -> %pf p %p r %i ", >>> + seq_printf(f, "%p: %pS -> %pf p %p r %i ", >>> cl, (void *) cl->ip, cl->fn, cl->parent, >>> r & CLOSURE_REMAINING_MASK); >>> >>> @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ static int debug_seq_show(struct seq_file *f, void *data) >>> r & CLOSURE_SLEEPING ? "Sl" : ""); >>> >>> if (r & CLOSURE_WAITING) >>> - seq_printf(f, " W %pF\n", >>> + seq_printf(f, " W %pS\n", >>> (void *) cl->waiting_on); >>> >>> seq_printf(f, "\n"); >>> >> >> It is unclear to me, that if %pF is used, on ia64/ppc64/parisc64 a >> function descriptor conversion happens, what negative effect exactly >> takes place ? > > On ia64/ppc64/parisc64 the kernel will crash here in the worst case, because > vsprintf() will try to read a pointer from that address and resolve it. > But you hand over a return address (_RET_IP_) which should be > resolved directly to a symbol. For that you need to use the %pS specifier, > which is what my patch does. > > The patch has no negative effect on any platform. Output will still be the > same on x86/mips/arm/... as it has been before with %pF. The only positive > effect of the patch is that the seq_printf will now show correct output on > ia64/ppc64/parisc64 too. Oh I see. The patch is OK to me, but could you please add the above information in the commit log, it will help other bcache developers to understand the patch. Thanks in advance for doing this. BTW, I also suggest to fix vsprintf() for this issue. For most of developers, we don't have sense for such issue on ia64/ppc64/parisc64, it is still very probably someone else makes similar mistake in future. If vsprintf() can be fixed, the potential risk can be safe. -- Coly Li