Hi Rasmus

-----Original Message-----
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 3:02 AM
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>; Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref]
Cc: Justin He <redacted>; Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-
foundation.org>; Petr Mladek [off-list ref]; Steven Rostedt
[off-list ref]; Sergey Senozhatsky [off-list ref];
Jonathan Corbet [off-list ref]; Alexander Viro [off-list ref];
Luca Coelho [off-list ref]; Kalle Valo [off-list ref];
David S. Miller [off-list ref]; Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref];
Heiko Carstens [off-list ref]; Vasily Gorbik [off-list ref];
Christian Borntraeger [off-list ref]; Johannes Berg
[off-list ref]; linux-doc@vger.kernel.org; linux-
kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org;
netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-s390@vger.kernel.org; Linux FS Devel <linux-
fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFCv2 2/3] lib/vsprintf.c: make %pD print full path for
file

On 01/06/2021 19.05, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

quoted

Here's some examples, what do you think makes sense?

snprintf(buf, 16, "bad file '%pD'\n", q);

what content do you want buf to have when q is variously:

1. /abcd/efgh
2. /a/bcdefgh.iso
3. /abcdef/gh

I would argue that
"bad file ''\n"
is actually a better string to have than any of (case 2)
"bad file '/a/bc"
"bad file 'bcdef"
"bad file 'h.iso"

Whatever ends up being decided, _please_ document that in
machine-readable and -verifiable form. I.e., update lib/test_printf.c
accordingly.

Currently (and originally) it only tests %pd because %pD is/was
essentially just %pd with an indirection to get the struct dentry* from
a struct file*.

Okay, I can add more test_printf cases for '%pD'

The existing framework is strongly centered around expecting '/a/bc (see
all the logic where we do multiple checks with size 0, size random, size
plenty, and for the random case check that the buffer contents match the
complete output up till the randomly chosen size), so adding tests for
some other semantics would require a bit more juggling.

Yes, agree.
In other way, if the user:
char* full_path = d_path(...);
snprintf("%s", limited_size, full_path);

He/she will get the inconsistent result if we return "" for '%pD'.

--
Cheers,
Justin (Jia He)

Not that that should be an argument in favor of that behaviour. But FWIW
that would be my preference.

Rasmus

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.