From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29094C3A59C for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:11:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A5520665 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:11:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="V09iSrJB" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726943AbfHPRL0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:11:26 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com ([209.85.208.194]:41207 "EHLO mail-lj1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726690AbfHPRL0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:11:26 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id m24so5916927ljg.8; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pomgRJ7Y2sXH2jwOj1STrfBEpF6Npzd1J1w6kjGaA7I=; b=V09iSrJB11CPwaVXLTWmkalvCsvviM5lMGdxCHwSKRtgTgQJeiwSyZLj7QS2h2hTv+ /GyEPYEFyaDR7pTQCCZ/TYAwP0Rp0/I/ZMwbM+L+nSDscRkEL0RXxpG6ox5i4CYHDmm+ bqHJtwzuTi372tdOLBpnQwgEogGlHK7yqjGU9xfDtpZxuF8HVmDXj5uzgSLks6D50DE7 bI8W0h62RV9mQm0YtPQsR6HkAATLGVun+5+GwWG8DQFllMwg15YtnUNjjH+h5V6LMnLR rWyiQGlB2qfXxJJhcrfDkk82Bsjx839xomcKY0XSbhuPsO29s3b4w+zZBcf2//SoDS7S 8g5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pomgRJ7Y2sXH2jwOj1STrfBEpF6Npzd1J1w6kjGaA7I=; b=CwBiWqJk1eIPKTkAI+vU/ePSkBC4KdK3CggQj1Sq01hpGYFUT1nEI5coMMiQv6tplB itBc8Ew7MoP6OfuGT313MiTNaswLGnju4toS8UsRE6OYo+LGuTpC1HmHL4ijwBo1ZCWd 0p36kD7YmiHxHyj/Tw/0HB2l3/dDfIZ0nzYSbx88ivgs9ICjbnYmz7LLQbQDHggHecXa 5I16CgU+Si54cqXBri4/a/QzIamlnL0l5B74d80U0Y5oSpOFflddALUcP1qqYhhbiv4K wlsAUeD1gWBLDPPCaFvMuefIZiogR8wq435EZpXMp/5WPmAX0m8I7/Pn0k26l0NnioiA 4vjg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWVqUtmMcyDIvY9ClefcFuUYMVLMTjnryxHBpHjEg8iMk+kLrJ8 rgRi2sP+3mcoGtxXJS48GH64PuHKuAOBT0aJK3jcRcVJ X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwCt936J4gdClYGjHqc54971ltTrNCQlDsaH8hkF76+C3mbCJF0xIDmHAPTPe5E7hnUufFw/K1kTu6nM0qDKDw= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7818:: with SMTP id t24mr4448140ljc.210.1565975484175; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:11:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190815143220.4199-1-quentin.monnet@netronome.com> <10602447-213f-fce5-54c7-7952eb3e8712@netronome.com> In-Reply-To: <10602447-213f-fce5-54c7-7952eb3e8712@netronome.com> From: Alexei Starovoitov Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:11:12 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 0/6] tools: bpftool: fix printf()-like functions To: Quentin Monnet Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , bpf , Network Development , oss-drivers@netronome.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:41 AM Quentin Monnet wrote: > > 2019-08-15 22:08 UTC-0700 ~ Alexei Starovoitov > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 7:32 AM Quentin Monnet > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> Because the "__printf()" attributes were used only where the functions are > >> implemented, and not in header files, the checks have not been enforced on > >> all the calls to printf()-like functions, and a number of errors slipped in > >> bpftool over time. > >> > >> This set cleans up such errors, and then moves the "__printf()" attributes > >> to header files, so that the checks are performed at all locations. > > > > Applied. Thanks > > > > Thanks Alexei! > > I noticed the set was applied to the bpf-next tree, and not bpf. Just > checking if this is intentional? Yes. I don't see the _fix_ part in there. Looks like cleanup to me. I've also considered to push commit d34b044038bf ("tools: bpftool: close prog FD before exit on showing a single program") to bpf-next as well. That fd leak didn't feel that necessary to push to bpf tree and risk merge conflicts... but I pushed it to bpf at the end.