On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:57:05AM -0500, Michael Kerrisk wrote: >> I agree that there's a problem with the page, but I don't think this >> patch is sufficient, nor does is it made in quite the right place. >> (This isn't a point that relates specifically to "%s", but rather to >> the *s*printf() functions.) >> >> I made a much bigger change that goes into more detail. The patch, >> destined for 3.16, is shown below. Does it look okay to you? > > I agree that it is better. Just out of curiosity, can you think of any > other conversions than %s that would cause this? Maybe I missed > something obvious but I could not think of anything. Offhand, %s is the only obvious one. But, hey, someone could try weird trickery with other pointers (e.g., interpret some part of the destination buffer as a pointer to int), so I imagine that is why we have the looser wording in the standards. Cheers, Michael > -- > Petr "Pasky" Baudis > The average, healthy, well-adjusted adult gets up at seven-thirty > in the morning feeling just terrible. -- Jean Kerr > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git man-pages online: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online_pages.html Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
