Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:35:33 +0100
From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@mvista.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com.br
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix %x parsing in vsscanf()
Message-ID: <20030923213533.GN7665@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
References: <20030923212207.GA25234@xanadu.az.mvista.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309231421450.24527-100000@home.osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309231421450.24527-100000@home.osdl.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1059
Lines: 26

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 02:28:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Deepak Saxena wrote:
> > 
> > Another option is to put the check in simple_strtoul() and
> > simple_strtoull() if that is preferred. I like this better b/c
> > we only have the check once.
> 
> I'd much rather fix strtoul[l](). In fact, strtoul[l]()  _already_ accepts
> the "0x" prefix - but it only does so if the "base" parameter is 0.
> 
> Fixing strtoul[l] should fix vsscanf() automatically, no? So I don't see 
> the "have the check only once" argument.

C99 on behaviour of %x:

"Matches an optionally signed hexadecimal integer, whose format is the same as
expected for the subject sequence of the strtoul function with the value 16
for the base argument."

IOW, strtoul() is definitely the right place to fix that.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/